Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, first, I declare some interests with respect to the Bill: first, as chairman of the Companion Animal Welfare Council; secondly, as president of the Pet Advisory Committee; and, thirdly, as chairman of the Ethics Committee of the British Veterinary Association.
	Along with my noble friend Lady Byford, I believe that the Bill represents a major step forward in advancing the welfare of animals—particularly companion animals. Hitherto, as the Minister said, the major legislation on animal welfare has been the Protection of Animals Act 1911, which has been particularly beneficial to production livestock—that is, farm animals. Much of the legislation has resulted from knowledge of the physiology and welfare needs of such animals. Companion animals, such as dogs, cats, rodents, birds and fish, have been less fortunate owing to the large number of species kept for companionship and the lack of knowledge regarding their welfare needs. Indeed, much of the welfare need has yet to be researched.
	Fortunately, we have left behind the Cartesian doctrine that regarded animals as automata—like clocks, capable of complex behaviour but incapable of speech, constructive reasoning and especially of feeling pain. That refuge of thought has long since been discarded and replaced by an increasing recognition that the quality of life of an animal must be a focal point in considering its welfare. From an evolutionary point of view, one accepts a continuity of development between all animals and man, and that there are only quantitative but not qualitative differences between human and non-human minds. An important question is: how close to human consciousness and expectation do animals come in the evolutionary scale? We now accept that the great apes have complex mental abilities similar in many ways to those of humans, and an ability to empathise with thoughts and feelings of each other. At which point down the evolutionary scale do animals lose the abilities ascribed to the great apes? Clearly, this will vary greatly according to the species of animal and thus, with respect to companion animals, it is difficult to enact one law to suit all needs.
	Nevertheless, the Bill contains very important generalisations, one of which is the duty of care, whereby the owner or keeper of an animal is under a legal obligation to provide for the needs of an animal in his keeping. It also gives authority for action to be taken before an animal actually suffers cruelty. An important new concept is that a person must take reasonable steps in all circumstances to provide for the needs of an animal for which he is responsible, and ensure that they are met to the extent required by good practice.
	Animals' needs are well expressed in Clause 9 by what has become known as the five freedoms, originally applied to farm animals but equally applicable to companion animals. It is worth rereading those, but I shall not repeat them here. An important corollary to Clause 9—the duty of care—is the ability of an inspector to issue an improvement notice if a person is failing to comply with the duties laid down in Clause 9. It is my strong opinion that it should be an offence for a person not to comply with an improvement notice. I very much favour debarring a person from keeping an animal if he has been demonstrated to be unfit to comply with an act as detailed in Clause 33, which is on disqualifications. It is my understanding—perhaps the Minister will clarify this—that in Scotland a similar Act has been strengthened by a "care notice" with respect to lack of compliance with an improvement notice.
	There are a number of issues that lend themselves to regulations rather than being on the face of the Bill. However, I believe one issue requires attention; namely, abandonment. My noble friend Lady Byford mentioned this. It is an unfortunate fact that many animals are abandoned for a variety of reasons and are left to survive as best they can. Some are simply strays; others become feral, scavenging on garbage and other waste; and some are dangerous to themselves or to traffic and people on the streets. Some are taken in by welfare organisations or sanctuaries where they are cared for and nursed back to health and acceptable behaviour. Subsequently, such animals may be placed in a foster home. However, it is still possible for the original owner to claim ownership of an animal that he abandoned in the first place, to the distress of the surrogate owner and the welfare society. I share the view of my noble friend Lady Byford that a clause is required to attend to that.
	Of the issues that I believe lend themselves to regulations, I would include the use of electronic devices for the control of companion animals, such as dogs in urban situations and pet fairs, which is another issue. It is important that regulations are framed having regard to adequate scientific knowledge of the use of electronic devices, or that such knowledge is acquired before regulations are made.
	An issue which I am sure has generated a massive amount of lobbying mail is the docking of dogs' tails. Docking is considered a mutilation by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, of which I had the honour to be president some 10 years ago, and by the British Veterinary Association, which condemns it except for therapeutic purposes. The Bill will permit the docking of puppies' tails provided a veterinary surgeon can certify on evidence provided by the owner that the dog is a working dog likely to be used for work in certain activities, and that it is not more than five days of age. I believe this places a veterinary surgeon in an almost impossible position, knowing that in any litter of puppies not all will be destined for work. Further, he is expected to certify an action on his behalf on evidence provided by another person—an action which any veterinary surgeon would resist. From my early days as a veterinary surgeon, I can say that I would resist it.
	But a more serious misapprehension associated with the docking of puppies' tails is the question of whether the puppy will feel pain on being docked at three days of age. Recent studies have shown that a foetus can respond to painful stimuli, as can a neonate. The important issue of pain reception is that of the descending control of a sensory input which develops post-natally. This control sends inhibitory messages to lower levels of the nervous system, switching input off at the point of entry if required. Descending control develops post-natally and slowly, and in very young pre-term infant humans has very little development and in animal models has virtually none. Hence, rather than feel no pain, it is likely that the puppy at three days has not developed the mechanism to down-regulate painful impulses derived from the docking procedure. That is the opposite of what is maintained by those who state that pain transmission is not developed at three days.
	The major bodies of the veterinary profession in the United Kingdom recommend that docking should be prohibited, as in Scotland. Evidence from other countries where docking is prohibited—for example, Norway—does not indicate that there is significant increase in tail damage in dogs which have not been docked but which worked in circumstances previously thought liable to damage the tail.
	In summary, this is a good Bill. I am reminded of the phrase attributed to Mahatma Ghandi—that the way a nation treats its animals is a mark of its civilisation. Though there are contentious issues in the Bill, these should not detract from its importance as a significant move forward in the welfare of animals and the way we treat them.

Lord Christopher: My Lords, like the speakers who preceded me, I welcome the Bill. I had better declare one or two relatively minor interests. The first is not minor. We have a 10 month-old dog; a replacement for two who died a while back. She is still learning a lot and I have plasters on my arm to prove it. The other interests are that I am one of the four trustees of the Douglas Houghton Memorial Fund, named after the late Lord Houghton of Sowerby, which is primarily concerned with the training of students who are to be involved in dealing with animals, and I support a number of charities, not least the wonderful Cambridge University Veterinary Training College which is quite remarkable.
	Bills like this always seem to me to be a bit like receiving an architect's drawing. You can see that it has all the bits in, but you have no real idea what the final building will look like. There are so many potential regulations to come forward that it is not easy to decide in your own mind what you need to have in the Bill and what one can leave to regulation. I hope that my noble friend will be able to tell us what degree of consultation will be involved in the preparation of those regulations. That is extremely important, as it was, for example, on the Mental Capacity Bill a while back.
	That we still have some pretty awful cruelty in this country is still very evident. In the year ending 31 May 2005, the RSPCA saw about 1 million animals and nearly 70,000 of them were in need of attention and care. Recently—this begs a lot of questions about the scale of penalties—two appalling cases have been reported in the press. The first that I saw of the first case was in the Sun—I do not admit to buying that paper—on 6 April. A man called Shaun Ferguson subjected a neighbour's dog to three days of the most hideous cruelty. He broke five of its ribs; he cut off one ear with scissors; he broke one front leg; and he shattered the dog's skull. He has not even been sentenced, because he has absconded, but when he is sentenced—assuming that he is found, as I suppose he will be—whatever the sentence is must be woefully inadequate compared to what is appropriate in a case of that nature.
	In today's Guardian, it is reported that in a breeding establishment, the owner of which died of a heart attack—which is perhaps as well for her—they found 200 Yorkshire terriers, some of them dead, and 37 cats in a windowless breeding shed in West Sussex in unspeakable conditions. I assume that that establishment is technically inspected. As my noble friend said, there is provision for inspections in the Bill, but I have no confidence that that will turn out to be wholly real because, as things stand, not only the will, but the means are unlikely to be there. Even in medical research, with 3 million procedures in 227 establishments, there are only 30 Home Office inspectors. We need to be aware of that when we consider the Bill.
	One of the serious gaps in the Bill is the lack of any serious reference to the pet animal sales arrangements. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, mentioned that. That is a retrograde step. I mentioned Douglas Houghton. In 1983, he was a major player in introducing the amendment to the previous Act which outlawed sales in certain areas:
	"in any part of a street or public place or at a stall or barrow in a market".
	I can remember that, at the time—those who knew him will know that he was of modest stature; distinctive but modest—he spent many weekends disguised. I saw him in his disguise—at least, he thought that it was a good disguise—driving around Club Row and other places of that nature making notes of what he wanted to say to colleagues in this House. To have anything less than that provision—I think that it should be extended—would be an extremely unfortunate step.
	I would be interested to hear from the Minister how that change has come about. Defra has apparently held a number of so-called stakeholder meetings—my noble friend mentioned some future ones—in the early consultations on the Bill. Some, I think, were held in June 2004. I am sure that the Minister cannot provide an answer today—indeed, I would not expect him to—but perhaps he will write to me, and copy in others who are interested in the Bill, and say what meetings have been held, when they were held and with whom. It is important to know whether we can be confident that Defra has had the breadth of contribution that would have been appropriate in these circumstances, given that the Bill is designed very sensibly to stand the test of time and provide for changes in regulation from time to time when they are needed.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, mentioned circuses. I will not go into detail on those, but I am quite sure that we should deal with them specifically. The evidence that has been sent to many of us, if not all of us, is quite appalling. Admittedly this was some years ago, but the worst circus I have ever seen was in China, and I suspect that we have some circuses here which in certain respects will not be a great deal better.
	I wanted to say a few words about docking, although I shall not talk at length about the subject because we will deal with it later. There is a lot of confusion about this, and it is difficult not to be schizophrenic. One can see that there is a case for a dog being docked in certain circumstances, although docked breeds are in the minority, as the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, indicated. According to the Kennel Club, about 18,000 Springer spaniels are registered with it each year. Probably no more than a fifth of those will ever become working dogs. I asked the Kennel Club for its definition of working dogs. It is surprisingly limited, although it has escaped me for the moment—these papers slide about. The club has identified only 19 breeds, of which about five are of the spaniel variety, a couple are pointers, and two or three are of the Bichon Frise variety. What is widely regarded as appropriate in the docking field is quite remarkable.
	I am sure that noble Lords have had the letter about bobbed tails and the trials and tribulations when a dog gets diarrhoea. I know all about that. One of my last dogs was an Airedale with a full tail that was mostly docked, although goodness knows why. He did have weak insides, but if you are not prepared to deal with that, you should not have a dog, in my view. It is quite appalling to cut his or her tail off merely because of the difficulties to you of cleaning up. Some of the stuff that we have had from the dog breeders gives the game away in many respects. Yes, they have arguments for doing it, but some of them are purely self-interested. I shall not go into detail at this stage. If we are to have docking at all, we have to have a very clear definition of it. I am not sure how we should deal with the difficulty highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, but it is a very real difficulty. Some breeds are docked and some are not. You cannot for the life of you understand why some breeds are docked, except to say that it must be for fashion and cosmetic reasons. It cannot possibly have anything to do with the difficulties of owning and using such dogs for any particular working practice.
	I do not expect my noble friend to be able to respond to this point, but the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, may be able to. In none of the correspondence that I have received has anyone referred to what a dog's tail is for. Apart from wagging, it is a very important signal to other dogs and to people of pleasure, fear or apprehension. It is used to protect the soft underparts of a dog. If you watch any dog which is lying down, you will see its tail curl backwards over its stomach and vital organs. When a dog is running, the tail is a significant part of its balance and its control over direction and particularly of turning. I do not stress these points, but it would be nice to feel that we knew exactly what it is we are talking about and may be allowing people to continue to do. So I do not think the definition here is satisfactory.
	Lastly, I would like to say a word about penalties. Yes, they are increased under the Bill, but not in my opinion adequately for the most serious offences. I have illustrated two which were pretty awful. There are many more of those around. Is five years, perhaps without a limit of bringing a prosecution, really unthinkable for cases of this nature? You cannot define what cases you are talking about, but there are judges or magistrates who clearly should be able to say whether a case is in this category or not. So I repeat that I support this Bill, I look forward to the Committee stage and I hope that we are able to deal with many of these issues more helpfully then.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, such is the expertise in this House that it is with some trepidation that one ever enters in a debate on a subject on which one does not normally speak. None the less, I welcome this Bill. One realises what immense pressure on legislation there is, and the department's Ministers should be congratulated on having managed to find a slot in the legislative programme for what has rightly been described today as a very important Bill. Given the subject matter of the Bill I should declare an interest, in that my daughter is in veterinary practice, though she should in no way be held responsible for anything which I may say this afternoon.
	My constituency experience, however, suggests that very often constituents are divided into two groups: those concerned with human welfare, and those concerned with animal welfare. Very often there is absolutely no overlap between the two. Indeed, it often becomes an extremely emotional subject. If I may make one general point, what has become increasingly apparent in recent years is that we can no longer neglect the division between animal welfare and human welfare, and in particular the division between human and animal medical science. Increasing cooperation between those two groups is needed if we are to deal with the kind of problems which we have been facing with BSE or now with bird flu. The two aspects of welfare are more closely related than perhaps we had realised before.
	The two points which I was going to raise, along with one I have raised on previous occasions, arose from discussions which I had at a seminar presided over by the Princess Royal and held by the International League for the Protection of Horses. They have been referred to both by the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, and by my noble friend on the Front Bench. The points concern the abandonment of animals. This does seem to be a real problem, despite the fact that the Commons seemed to give the Bill much deeper scrutiny than is now sometimes allowed with the proposals for programming of debate at Committee and other stages. Although there is no specific offence of abandonment in the Bill—it may be that an individual can be prosecuted under other parts of the legislation—it seems likely that horses in particular may be abandoned. That may happen because of the cost of the passport or the quite considerable expense of feeding and so forth. Finally—this is something I shall touch on again later—there is the question of costs at the end of the animal's life if it is not abandoned.
	The main concern of the ILPH is that the Bill is not sufficiently clear on the situation regarding legal ownership of an abandoned animal if one or other animal charity takes it on. It asks whether an amendment should be introduced in your Lordships' House to enable a charity to apply to the court in order to obtain legal ownership so that the situation is made clear. There is no problem if an inspector or constable is involved, but if no officer is in attendance the situation can be somewhat uncertain. Surely there is no case for not amending the Bill in order to deal with this issue.
	The other aspect which has been raised with me is the question of statutory improvement notices. While there are now advantageous provisions in the Bill, there is still no penalty for non-compliance. To legislate for something but to have no penalty if it is then ignored is a rather odd way to complete consideration of the Bill, as your Lordships will in due course.
	I want to raise one further point with the Minister, a matter that I have pursued through Questions tabled since 2003. It concerns the transport of live horses for slaughter. There are problems even in this country, given the reduction in the number of abattoirs and the distance which these horses now have to travel. However, here we take a pretty strong line in terms of regulating these activities. However, attitudes to animals vary widely across the European Union. In an earlier discussion the noble Lord referred to the people who oppose what we have proposed on regulating the transport of live horses for slaughter. He did not give a specific answer, but he did say that it depends on how far south and perhaps how far east you go. A large proportion of this trade is conducted between eastern Europe and Italy. Having said that, I learnt at a meeting with representatives from ILPH that a quite remarkable operation is now being carried out in Romania to improve the lot of horses there. Under communism horses were virtually disregarded in favour of tractors, but now the view is that provided the horse is looked after properly, it is the tractor which is more likely to break down. The Romanian Government have apparently adopted a very constructive attitude.
	None the less, the situation regarding the transport of live horses for slaughter within the Union is not clear. I have referred to the string of Questions in which the noble Lord and I have exchanged views over time, but we were relying heavily on the minimum value regulations to prevent the export of live animals for slaughter from this country, and I understand that the Government were working hard to improve conditions in the European Union. However, the last Question was tabled over a year ago and I am not clear on what the situation is today. Could we bring forward provisions in this Bill that would do something to help? Clauses 51 and 52 seem to give a power to check on the situation of horses as they leave this country, but I understand that there are no proposals to introduce similar regulations to provide for inspections on the same scale elsewhere in the European Union. When he comes to wind up, perhaps the noble Lord would give me some idea of the up-to-date position and to what extent the Government have been able to negotiate a reasonable outcome to resolve this issue.
	Certainly, generally speaking, there can be no doubt about the need for the Bill—an appalling case was reported in the Evening Standard this afternoon of the way in which animals can be abused. I hope that the Bill will go through and be successful. It can still be improved, but it will none the less make an important contribution to animal welfare.

Lord Plumb: My Lords, in declaring my interests as a livestock farmer, president of the National Sheep Association and a member of the Rare Breeds Survival Trust, as well as my involvement with various breed societies, I recognise the need for modernising the law and, in principle, I therefore join many of your Lordships in supporting the Bill.
	In his opening remarks, the Minister made the point very clearly that today's legislation must take account of the changes in welfare needs and scientific knowledge since the legislation to promote the welfare of farm livestock was put in place in the early 1960s. In fact, he said that it had been in place for almost 100 years. Since then, of course, it has been updated from time to time and has developed into something of a mish-mash of regulations covering the welfare of animals. I believe that the time taken by Defra and many stakeholders, who have had meetings during the past two years to develop better-quality legislation, has been very well invested. There is no doubt that there is a need for an overhaul and a system built around it which takes account of the European Union regulations, with simplicity, practicality, flexibility and proportionality as the four cornerstones of change.
	The theme of my comments in the debate is a move towards systems that can be better understood by all who are concerned with animals, large or small. I have an interest in dogs as well as in farm animals and I can include them because one's concern is with working dogs.
	I am particularly aware of the independent review of the livestock movement rules. That is a matter of concern and ought to be more emphasised in the Bill. Few issues affect the livestock industry more than the movement of animals—sheep in particular—as we witnessed in the last outbreak of foot and mouth disease. Then, of course, the rules and regulations surrounding the movement of sheep were uppermost in the minds of many people concerned with the spread of the disease up and down the country.
	Movements are vital if an economically viable industry is to be maintained, as the movements within a farming business are driven by the seasons and the need to manage the pastures on the different holdings. The regulatory challenges in moving livestock are compounded by the incredibly complex and impractical rules on identification which are linked to those movements. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to concentrate on simplification of the regulations on the movement of livestock and recognise the importance of keeping movements within a business as free from bureaucracy as is conceivably possible. There should surely be no need for notifying the authorities of a movement within land parcels which are epidemiologically linked.
	The time, the cost, the logistics and the paperwork have a huge effect on the business and the state of mind of the individuals concerned with managing the whole operation. I attended only last Saturday the livestock market in Worcester and saw the amount of paper that is needed in passport form and the concern and frustration that people have when they are in the market with a parcel of livestock. It has to be seen to be believed. Disease has no respect for country borders either, and to have differing rules within the UK makes it illogical and confusing for a significant percentage of keepers who move stock across borders.
	Having talked about movement, I am concerned through the whole of this Bill with the definition of an inspector. The Minister made it clear in his opening remarks that he, too, was concerned with this. There always has to be a government inspector, or someone working on behalf of the state, and I am pleased that he made that position clear, particularly regarding the RSPCA. Yet giving whoever has the responsibility for inspection the powers proposed in the Bill could be of great concern to the whole livestock industry. What is, as described in the Bill, a "suitable environment"? Deciding that is one of the duties of persons responsible for welfare, but it is too subjective to be printed as legislation. Also, what is "normal behaviour"? To take one example, between lowland and hill sheep, this would be substantially different. The pressure on chemical dips for treating parasites in sheep is increasingly a problem, which can have further welfare implications.
	The key message is that, while we must take every precaution to care for animal welfare, proportionate and well informed help must be the way to progressing the welfare of the farmer and stock-keeper, as well as the welfare of the animal. It is in farmers' own interests to care for their stock. As we attempt to update the animal welfare legislation to meet modern methods of husbandry, we should resist any temptation to exercise the broad powers and so impose over-prescriptive regulation based on sentiment rather than sound science.
	I have some brief comments on one or two of the clauses. Clause 4 deals with what is now labelled "unnecessary suffering"—previously, it was regarded as cruelty. That is now much clearer, and I assume that it means separating out mutilation into its own clause, Clause 5. Clause 6 relates to the docking of dogs' tails. I welcome the exemption for certified working dogs. Concerns have already been expressed by the BVA and the RCVS, as indicated so clearly by my noble friend Lord Soulsby—we are extremely fortunate to have such expertise in this House. I hope that their concerns will prevail in the final version of the Bill.
	Clause 9 recasts the attempt in the draft Bill to create a new offence concerning the five freedoms relating to welfare. Again, my noble friend referred to this. I believe that the measure is now much clearer and fairer in the Bill. Clause 10, which empowers inspectors to issue improvement notices to responsible stock-keepers, will depend on the common sense of the inspectors. As with Clauses 12 and 13, in making the regulations the guiding light has to be science and not sentiment. The powers to make welfare codes in the 1968 legislation have been subsumed in this Bill, and it would be helpful if this was replicated in Clause 14.
	On relieving animals in distress, Clause 18 seems acceptable, but under subsection (13) an owner could face a bill for inspectors' expenses where no proceedings for unnecessary suffering have taken place.
	I am surprised that there is little or no mention of biosecurity in the Bill. Biosecurity is a very important concern for all of us in the prevention of the spread of disease. Can the Minister tell us whether this may be covered by another regulation?
	I have said many times in these comments that the key to a successful system is simplicity combined with proportionality. Many of the complicated rules that we have force many livestock farmers into having more complicated systems as they endeavour to keep their business functioning.

Lord Naseby: My Lords, in just over 30 years in Parliament, I have yet to speak on an animal welfare Bill. That is not because I do not recognise the great importance of animal welfare—indeed, I have in both Houses supported any animal welfare Bill that has gone through. However, two particular issues have prompted me to speak today. One is my Jack Russell, Bertie, who is aged three. I am not sure whether he is categorised as a working dog. We have a lot of rabbits, and he is quite good at catching them. Rabbits have to be controlled—I do not have a farm, I have 30 acres. He is an even better ratter, and thanks to his presence we have no rats. His predecessor, a whippet—they are not known as working dogs although they can run damn fast—was singularly ineffective at catching rats, and we had to deal with them using other methods.
	With Bertie in mind, I turn to the definition of working dogs in Clause 6. From memory, one would normally buy a dog at six to 12 weeks old—certainly not within five days. How on earth is a prospective purchaser who believes that he needs a working dog to establish one in a litter? Therefore, the points raised by a number of noble Lords about the poor old vet who is charged with establishing within five days the demand for working dogs—I do not know whether there are any papers on that, although presumably the Office for National Statistics must have some evidence—suggest that the Bill, in its present form, is singularly unworkable.
	Secondly, it is with enormous trepidation that I question the view of my noble friend Lord Soulsby about pain suffered by dogs. I had a skin tag removed by electrocautery. I did not feel any pain at all. My understanding from the briefing that I received from the Council of Docked Breeds is that that is the modern method of docking. I think that I am reasonably sensitive; I was a pilot in the Royal Air Force and one's hands, at least, are very sensitive, and the mind is pretty good, too. If I did not feel any pain, it is questionable whether a dog that is less than five days old would feel any. I could refer to other parts of my anatomy where I must have had surgery and where I certainly did not feel any lasting pain—at least, I cannot remember it. I do not know whether any of your Lordships in the same age group who underwent the same surgery can remember whether they felt any pain. So I say to my noble friend that it is pretty questionable whether a pup of that age feels any pain.
	When we come to the categories of what a working dog is about—lawful pest control—at this point, I do not require a licence to control the rabbits that are in my domain. I am not a licensed pest control operator because I do not work on anybody else's land, but I certainly use the dogs to control the rabbits and I would be in deep trouble if I did not. I am not sure that the Bill covers that point.
	Then we come to the lawful shooting of animals. I am not clear about the difference between pest control and the control of animals, but presumably that will be defined in the regulations. Therefore, I suggest to the Minister that, when he comes to review the Second Reading debate and to consider amendments for Committee, if there really has to be some restriction, would it not be more sensible to do it by breed? The majority of dogs in a particular breed are used in some sort of working environment. I have had a plea from the Boxer community here; personally I cannot stand Boxers because they slobber all over you, but nevertheless I can understand that if you own a Boxer you have enough problems controlling it let alone dealing with its tail on top of everything else. I can see that people may feel very strongly. My plea is that, for heaven's sake, let us have some legislation that is workable. Will I have to put in a bid to the vet at some point? Bertie wants a second Jack Russell because there are so many damn rabbits around that he is worked off his little feet. He does not need a tail to turn as well as any spaniel or any other dog. He can turn extremely quickly without a tail. He is pretty quick, as I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Christopher.
	I have two other points. Twenty years ago, we all used to hold up the RSPCA as a beacon of responsibility in matters to do with animal welfare and had 110 per cent trust in its judgment. Sadly, that is gone. I do not know why it has gone, but the RSPCA seems to have become a campaigning organisation rather than an animal welfare organisation. Therefore, the point made by my noble friend Lord Plumb about inspection and the importance of experience and qualifications—it is also made by many of the parties that make representations to noble Lords—is absolutely fundamental. While the individual RSPCA officer is still held in high regard, generally speaking, unfortunately one or two have become campaigning persons and that has depreciated the currency.
	My third point is about circuses, on which the RSPCA has made its views quite clear. It wants to ban all wild animals from circuses. I opened the letter that it sent this morning. It says:
	"In March 2006, the Minister for Animal Welfare, Ben Bradshaw, announced that there would be a ban on 'certain' wild animals in travelling circuses. However, it remains to be seen which creatures will be banned, and we are keen to ensure that the ban includes all wild animals".
	I can speak about only one breed of wild animal. Noble Lords may know that I have a deep involvement in Sri Lanka and India. In that part of the world, the elephant is the shire horse of the community. Elephants are working animals used for timber moving and a host of other jobs in their village communities. They are well looked after and an absolute asset. I can remember using one in Colombo to move some machinery that had been sent from the UK when there was no mechanical means of getting that machinery into the factory. Rajah was recruited and moved the equipment. There is only one elephant in any circus in the UK at the moment. I cannot speak for African elephants, because I know nothing about them, but Asian elephants are very much the horse of that part of the world and I see no reason why my children and particularly my grandchildren should be denied the opportunity to see them in zoos, where they do see them, and to see them if and when we go to the circus.
	We should recognise, for once, that we are a member of the wider community of Europe. The European Parliament has had a number of debates on circuses—far more than we have had here. Every time there is a debate in Europe, it centres on the role of the good circus and the fact that it is part of the life and culture of western European civilisation. That does not mean that there should not be proper control—all the animals that take part in the circuses, particularly the wild animals, should be looked after. But I hope that when we debate that aspect of the Bill, wherever it may appear, it will not be on the basis of the crusading role of the RSPCA, which wants to ban all wild animals from circuses.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I begin by apologising to the Minister and the House for having being late. I had an internal problem that I could not ignore.
	This Bill addresses the important subject of the protection of animals from suffering, and the promotion of their welfare, and I am as committed to that as other noble Lords. However, it also refers, in Clause 5, to scientific research, saying that:
	"Nothing in this Act applies to anything lawfully done under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986".
	I wish to take this opportunity therefore to raise this very different aspect of the law as it relates to animals. I believe it to be true that the rules protecting animals—the vast majority in this instance are small rodents and fish—are tightly drawn and stringently applied. It is generally recognised that research in this area has produced infinitely valuable knowledge to advance the treatment of major diseases such as Parkinson's, and that the research is very strictly monitored, both by research workers themselves and by successive governments, to ensure against unnecessary suffering. Research in the UK in this field is vital and is constantly addressing new threats to human life, but that research has been under constant threat for at least the last 17 years from a body of protest which goes well beyond the proper concerns of an animal-loving public, and is nothing less than ruthless overt domestic and, indeed, international terrorism.
	The people concerned call themselves the Animal Liberation Front; SHAC, which is aimed against Huntingdon Life Sciences; and the Animal Rights Militia; and then there is the so-called Justice Department. Their websites claim victories, boast of valiance, and utter threats daily. They terrorised a whole rural community of 500 people for six years with arson, bombs and threats, in order to close down a guinea pig farm, even taking the body of a family member from the grave three years ago. That body has never been returned, even though the farm has closed. The first arrests in this operation were made in August 2005 and, after a trial this month, those people await sentencing.
	In SHAC's long-running campaign against Huntingdon Life Sciences, it has terrorised the banks into refusing to handle the HLS accounts by making threats against bank directors, so that the Bank of England, thanks to the prompt and admirable intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, and the DTI had to take over. It has also so terrorised a number of firms associated with HLS that they have ceased to work with it. That has not been done through the normal, peaceful protest, however passionate, which we have seen by CND or at Aldermaston, or for many other good causes. It has been done by attacking workers and directors alike in their homes, burning their cars and sometimes their houses, threatening their children at school, and the schools themselves, carrying out sustained hate campaigns and accusing decent workers of paedophilia.
	These are not decent people demonstrating with passion and conviction on an issue of principle. They are evil creatures, who boast on the internet of their attacks on ordinary men and women going about their lawful business. That is not legitimate protest, but it has been chillingly effective for a number of reasons, not least that the law initially regards these actions as part of normal protest. One reason for its success has been the absence of really effective legislation. Despite the claim by the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General in 2004 that the Government would be able to use 43 specialist prosecutors—one for each criminal justice area in England and Wales—to prevent people being terrorised in this way, and despite injunctions and exclusion orders, these murderous thugs are in all but a tiny number of cases, brought to court only after long intervals, getting away with injunctions, ASBOs, community service and minute costs—and that only since 2004.
	Despite the Serious Organised Crime Act and the Protection from Harassment Act, which provides for limited exclusion orders, and despite the energetic efforts of NETCU—the National Extremism Tactical Co-ordination Unit—which have included the closing down of ALF and associated bank accounts where they can be identified, anyone working even remotely with animal research remains at actual and daily risk of personal attack. The punishments so far in no way fit the crime. The evil amoeba is very difficult to pin down.
	Although in July 2004 the Home Office pledged itself to jail those who intimidated workers in their homes and was looking at new ways to strengthen the law, the then Home Secretary would not offer a Bill on animal rights extremists because he did not believe he could win the necessary parliamentary time. I hope the CPS is pursuing the cases brought by the police with more than its usual vigour.
	It is a terrible irony that if the ALF—through its harassment of scientists, workers and those who breed for strictly controlled research—succeeds in forcing the work to be outsourced from the UK, that work will inevitably move to countries in Asia and China and some parts of eastern Europe where the legal protection of animals that obtains here will not exist. Authoritarian regimes will tolerate no protest, and media coverage will be very muted—if there is any at all. Outsourcing is already being initiated on a large scale in both Shanghai and Singapore.
	Another problem is undoubtedly the cost in time and effort for already overstretched police forces. The Staffordshire police dealing with the Darley Oaks case had to ask the Home Office for an extra £250,000 in 2003, and, no doubt, in succeeding years. Dealing with the attacks on HLS cost £1 million a year for the Cambridgeshire police, and these are official costs only, taking no account of the major cost to research and industry.
	One of the great problems has been the very real fear these hateful creatures inspire. Even a member of the Select Committee on Science and Technology at one time was reported as refusing to go on "Newsnight" to discuss the issue for fear of being targeted. Having prevented Cambridge University from creating a much-needed research centre through sheer intimidation and menaces, the terrorists have been doing their best to prevent Oxford also from building a research centre. The terrorists delayed building for a year by personally threatening the directors of the then contracting firm so that they withdrew, and are now pursuing the same tactics with the present contractors.
	During their many demonstrations they were, until the law intervened, photographing ordinary, decent workmen, as well as the research workers, to intimidate them from coming to work and strike fear into their families. They have issued an ultimatum to the university, proclaiming that every member, senior and junior alike, every firm serving the university and every charity supporting it—down, for instance, to the Sutton Trust—will be attacked. Many have already received threats, and several attacks have been carried out as a warning. These are not principled demonstrations, but acts of intimidations.
	The wonderful thing is that a boy of 16, struck by the threatening, bullying behaviour of the SPEAK protestors, organised a counter-demonstration last month. It was supported by students and faculty to defend the right to research and to demonstrate a refusal to be intimidated by violence. It is vital that that act of honourable defiance of a brutal terrorist group that has so far had things far too easy should be supported by the country and the public.
	The six parishes around the Darley Oaks guinea pig farm, which eventually sought an injunction to exclude the terrorists, were not supported by the law in that request, or at least only to a very limited degree. Her Majesty's Government have been supportive of Oxford, but the law still finds difficulty in weighing the rights of protesters against the rights of those they threaten. These evil and ruthless terrorists must not be allowed to present themselves as peaceful and decent demonstrators. The body of the woman seized from the grave at Darley Oaks has not yet been returned, despite the fact that the farm operation was closed down earlier this year after six years of intimidation. That is not principled, legitimate protest—it is the act of criminals.
	I hope the Government, the public and the media alike will give effective support to Oxford by giving the police and NETCU adequate resources and by supporting the ordinary citizens, both town and gown, who are not prepared to be intimidated by criminals masquerading as protestors. I hope, too, that the powers available to the law will be used to limit, if not to remove, the power of the terrorists to identify and terrorise the workmen, the firms and, not least, the research workers. The university is bound in honour to protect and advance research, and the country needs it. The law must take account of that duty, and punish the wrongdoers, once convicted, with the full rigour of the law. This must be a battle to which society as a whole is committed.

Lord Lucas: My Lords, I welcome this Bill. The first few clauses in particular are a positive step forward in looking at all the various forms of cruelty which we inflict on animals on an even basis. All of us are cruel to animals in person or by proxy. It may be through taking medicines or other chemicals that have been tested on animals, which involves undoubted and acknowledged cruelty. We are cruel principally, however, in pest control. The methods we use are undoubtedly cruel. Although we do our best to limit the cruelty, we have to acknowledge that we are prepared to be cruel to mice and rats in particular to keep them out of our food.
	When I first read the Bill, I thought that there was nothing in it which would affect pest control, but I was delighted to read in the Hansard of another place that once an animal is caught, it is regarded as being within the control of a human being. I have previously taxed Ministers on mouse papers, which, if noble Lords do not know, are like fly papers designed for catching mice. You peel off the paper and put them down. The mouse then becomes attached to it when it runs across it. In the course of the next few hours, it is likely to pull itself free, leaving bits of itself behind. It is not a nice process. Ministers have previously assured me that you can use these things only under professional supervision. This is clearly not the case; they are easily available in ordinary retail stores. I hope that Ministers will now move either to ban these things from sale or to ensure that it is made very clear on the pack that they are to be used and supervised carefully and that, if they are not, the users may find themselves open to prosecution under the Bill.
	In general, we should anticipate the provisions of the Bill extending outwards to all the areas in which we are cruel to animals. Various areas of cruelty appear to be excepted by the Bill. Fishing is the most obvious of those, though I am not sure quite why. Why should we allow cruelty to fish to take place in such an obvious way? Why should it not be subject to the same regulations? I ask these questions as a fisherman. What justification do we give for such cruelty? Should that justification not form part of the Bill? We could argue in terms of the overall benefits to the environment of fishing and shooting. If that is the justification we are using for such cruelty—it is a strong justification in many circumstances—it would help curb cruelty where there is no such benefit.
	We should anticipate the scope of the Bill widening over time. Clause 12 provides Ministers with the means to do that, without their ever having to come back to Parliament. I do not see that Clause 12 is limited in its scope—perhaps the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—to things which could be done in other ways in other parts of the Bill. You could quite easily interpret Clause 12 as stating that someone who is breeding game birds or fish for release into captive ponds has to have knowledge of what will happen to them after release, and that that activity could therefore be controlled under it and perhaps under Clause 13. I have difficulty with the scope of Clause 12 anyway, because if only Clause 12 and not the rest of the Bill was there, everything in the Bill could be done under it. I know that the Minister intends to limit the clause to the sort of things that we would expect it to be used for, but it may render future legislation unnecessary, because anything that the Government could dream of doing could be done under Clause 12.
	I would like to see research covered, particularly by Clause 9. I know that the whole of that area is exempted at the moment, but when I was a member of your Lordships' committee examining research on animals, it disturbed me that in many regards proper care was not taken of the matters mentioned in Clause 9, particularly the need to be able to exhibit normal behaviour patterns and the need for a suitable environment. We saw many animals living in bare, wire-bottomed cages, because that was what was considered necessary for reproducible scientific results that could be compared with results previously obtained from animals living in similar circumstances. That is not acceptable, so I hope that the spirit of Clause 9 will be carried through one way or another to how we look after animals that we are cruel to for our sake.
	I find difficulty in equating suffering with necessity. There seems to be no limit imposed on the minuteness of the suffering. That may lead to difficulty in a Bill that relates particularly to an area that is subject to private prosecution by politically active organisations. We must have some test of reasonableness or significance in terms of the suffering that has been imposed on the animal, because we can impose a very small level of suffering on an animal entirely unnecessarily. That should not lead to us being prosecuted—not that there would eventually be a conviction or a significant penalty, but there could be considerable harassment. That is an object that such organisations would be happy to bring about.
	When it comes to docking, I have an interest to declare in that I own two terriers, both of which have been docked. My feeling is that we should respect the free vote in another place, but that we should seek, as the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, pointed out, to make that section of the Bill practically enforceable. I share his doubts as to whether the imposition on vets of the requirement to certificate in relation to the conditions imposed by the Bill is possible or practicable. Vets should do the docking; indeed, the Bill should ensure that the veterinary colleges cannot discipline a vet for docking. But perhaps it is sufficient to say that you cannot show a breed that has been docked. If you cannot show docked breeds, cosmetic docking will of necessity rapidly die out, because it will no longer be the breed standard and a fair proportion of those who care about the look of such dogs are interested in the show world.
	Lastly, I wish to raise the question of greyhounds and again declare an interest, in that my uncle by marriage is Paddy Sweeney. I am glad that at last the greyhound industry is coming into line with what he has urged for ages—proper care for the animals which it uses to earn a livelihood. I hope that the Government will preserve a degree of scepticism when it comes to allowing the greyhound industry to regulate itself. The industry has been extremely reluctant to make the course vets independent. On reading the literature, I see that even now they are only quasi-independent. They are appointed by the courses, but the authorities say that they will consider taking action if a course dismisses a vet because the vet says that things need to be changed or improved.
	One of the major causes of greyhound injury is the tightness of the bands on the tracks operated by those people. They are unlikely to take action on that issue. I hope that the Minister will insist, if the industry is to be allowed to self-regulate, that the vets appointed on courses are truly independent; that is, they are appointed by someone other than the course or the greyhound industry associations, and cannot be sacked under any circumstances by the course but perhaps only by the veterinary authorities. That would be an acceptable way of allowing self-regulation. The proposals in the glossy that I received from the Greyhound Racing Association fall far short of what is required.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, we on these Benches generally support and welcome the Bill. As the Minister made clear at the beginning, it brings companion animals—that is, pets—into line with the legislation that we passed some time ago in this House with regard to farm animals. As more than half of British households have one or more pets, this is an important piece of legislation.
	A fact which has not been mentioned much this afternoon but which is equally important is that, although many of the 10,000 small businesses such as pet shops, grooming parlours and kennels are doing a terrific job, a few of them certainly need more regulation and inspection. The Bill will provide a very useful forum in which to decide on the balance required between imposing red tape—which, as the Minister said, it is hoped will be very light touch—on these small businesses and setting an environment where businesses that do not come up to scratch in their concern for animals are encouraged to do so or to cease trading.
	The Bill creates five basic needs for animals but I find it somewhat illogical in that, for example, it excludes primates as pets. It is hard to imagine how a primate kept as a pet can exhibit normal and natural behaviour if it is kept in someone's house—an environment that in no way equates to the trees in the jungle.
	When the Minister introduced the Bill, he announced that the Government would consider excluding exotic animals from use in circuses. That is certainly to be welcomed because such animals would not have the third of the basic needs fulfilled. It is not logical for an animal to have a basic freedom to exhibit normal behaviour patterns when the day-to-day life of the animal precludes that.
	I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that everything in the Bill can be done under Clause 12. Arguably, the Government could have made the debate in Committee much shorter by simply introducing Clause 12, but I am glad that they did not do that as we clearly need to debate many of the issues contained in it. At the same time, it will be useful to explore much further in Committee what the Government envisage bringing in under Clause 12 and the shape that that might take.
	The Bill has been through the Commons, where improvements were made to it. Tail-docking is an interesting example of where Members in the other place grasped the issue and, in a free vote, came to a conclusion which these Benches will be inclined to respect. However, the conclusion is still somewhat illogical because, as other noble Lords have pointed out, docking the tails of working dogs is acceptable but you are not able to show those dogs. If docking the tails of working dogs is allowed, that does not make such dogs unsuitable for showing. We shall need to explore that matter much further in Committee.
	Tail-docking is an interesting issue and noble Lords have explored both sides of the argument very well. The noble Lord, Lord Christopher, mentioned the natural use of a dog's tail for balance and protection and indeed for wagging. I remember the same arguments being employed for the docking of horses' tails—that it was a good, utilitarian thing to do, and stopped the tails becoming entangled in harness. Now, however, we do not dock horses' tails. Perhaps in time the docking of dogs' tails also will become unacceptable. I have received, as I am sure other noble Lords have, a great many letters and e-mails, in almost equal quantities, for both sides of the argument. Most of them are pretty persuasive.
	There is a Scottish version of this Bill which I find slightly more complete than the one before your Lordships' House. Some of the amendments which we on these Benches will table will shamelessly be lifted from the Scottish Bill in an attempt to improve this Bill.
	The Minister rightly said that protection for farm animals is ahead of that for pet animals. The UK has a very good record on farm animal welfare. Sometimes our farmers are at a disadvantage in the market by having to provide very high animal welfare standards. I entirely support those, but the Government could introduce measures to help farmers to market the products produced under such standards. Are the Government intending to adopt Article 36 of the European Union rural development regulation which refers to supporting farmers to adopt high standards of animal welfare, including those who undertake to adopt animal husbandry standards that go beyond the relevant mandatory standards? As I understand it, the Government currently do not intend to offer that under the rural development regulation.
	Other noble Lords have mentioned animals in sport, particularly greyhounds. I look forward to hearing the expertise in this Chamber on that subject. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, is offering to brief noble Lords further on those issues.
	The regulation and licensing of animal sanctuaries is an important issue. Many excellent sanctuaries provide expert care to particular species. There are sanctuaries for hedgehogs, monkeys, dogs, toads and many other species. However, other establishments pose as sanctuaries but are more tourist attractions. They have no intention of returning animals to the wild or doing anything other than making money from them. Those so-called sanctuaries need much closer scrutiny. There are also sanctuaries that do not intend to be cruel but are probably created by people with mental health problems. In Committee it will be important to explore cases in which people accumulate a species of animal and call it a sanctuary whereas they are in fact indulging their own fantasies, often funded by well-intentioned members of the public. I have come across at least two such establishments. They really are quite a problem.
	The Government are inclined to do more about boarding kennels. It will be important to discuss in Committee the definition of commercial boarding, particularly when someone offers to take two or three cats or dogs into their own home. I know that the Government have differentiated between cats and dogs in that regard. Is there a de minimis size for a commercial kennel? What about someone who simply supplements his income by taking in his friends' dog or cat when they are on holiday, for example? All those things will take up some time in Committee.
	Nothing in the Bill addresses the growing issue of pet theft and effective pet identification—an issue which has pointed out to me and, I am sure, to other noble Lords by the insurance industry. Pet theft is a serious and increasing problem which must be looked at with pet identification. Have the Government, given current technology, made any progress on finding more effective methods of protecting pets from theft and identifying them when they have been stolen, thereby cutting down on the number of animals that need to be destroyed as a result?
	Finally, there is the issue of pet shows and pet fairs. Pet shows are pretty much okay. There are an awful lot of them—thousands a year. They bring enormous pleasure to a lot of people who usually have very high care standards for their pets and enjoy swapping notes on welfare, breeds and so on with other people. Then there are pet fairs, which are run primarily for the sale of pets. The Government need to talk about whether such fairs are a biosecurity threat. I am sure they are harder to regulate and encourage the sale of illegally imported creatures—a matter we discussed with the Minister during passage of the most recent Bill we had the pleasure of debating with him, concerning illegally imported wild birds. Pet fairs are probably the animal equivalent of the car boot sale. I hope that in Committee we will spend some time discussing the exact definitions of "a fair" and "a show" and the Government's regard of those.
	The internet is the very modern version of the pet fair. There is little point in spending huge amounts of time in the Bill regulating pet shops and kennels and loading requirements on them if nothing is done about internet sales and the prosecution of those who are doing very inappropriate things on the internet.
	I look forward to debating the Bill in your Lordships' House and to the Minister's reply today.

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, this debate has ranged over many aspects of animal welfare and many views have been represented. As so often happens, the enormous wealth of experience available in the House has been on show.
	I must declare my interests after working for 40 years as a livestock farmer, although, being in Scotland, I am not directly affected by much of this Bill. In Scotland we are already subject to recently updated legislation in this field, though I note that the Minister seemed to suggest that we may be subject to more. I have interests in the Royal Highland Show and other agricultural shows. I am also an honorary associate of the British Veterinary Association, president of the Buchanan Sheepdog trial, and the owner of a dog. Most of my concerns stem from those interests.
	The Minister made clear the powers and enduring value of the Protection of Animals Act 1911. Perhaps I may ask your Lordships to consider for a moment that period of time. There is no argument that it is always appropriate in this day and age that we should have laws that meet the changing welfare needs and increased scientific knowledge of the day. However, it was a very different world when that law was drawn up. It was a world full of animals. If you wanted to get about in that world, you needed animals. Steam and sail were the power sources of industry and transport. The motor car was a novelty for a few. But even in this country, for the countryside and a great deal of the urban population, if you wanted power, it was a matter of water or animals. My noble friend Lord Higgins drew attention to the fact that that is still true in parts of eastern Europe. Animals in our civilisation have always been more than a curiosity or a fashion item.
	In considering revising that legislation, perhaps we should not forget how far we have come and bear in mind that there is always the chance that we may find ourselves back in a somewhat similar position, if technology does not deliver—as the Government obviously hope that it will. The Government would obviously like an enabling Bill that they can then tailor to whatever circumstances turn up. My noble friend Lord Lucas has highlighted the powers that rest in Clause 12. All those who have to do with the rearing, handling or training of animals would like as much as possible to be spelt out in the Bill.
	My noble friend Lord Soulsby has given us the benefit of his great understanding of the science and life of animals, from the most sophisticated downwards. Noble Lords will be aware that the Bill is due to take away Part 1 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968, on which most of the farm animal welfare codes are based. In my experience, the livestock industry has adjusted to the present codes of practice, although there are areas where they create difficulties for what is practicable on a daily basis. My noble friend Lord Plumb has outlined some areas where elements do not seem to be working too well, especially concerning transport.
	Will the existing codes have to be completely redrawn, or can they be adopted under the Bill when it is enacted? There are bound to be worries if there is a wholesale redrawing of codes and legislation, although I know that the representatives of many organisations have been involved. As other noble Lords have pointed out, many areas of the Bill would benefit from further clarification. It strikes me that in Clause 4, on unnecessary suffering, the Explanatory Note immediately sets a new boundary by defining that as physical or mental suffering. Those of us who have been involved in the drawing up of farm animal codes have been round the course many times on questions such as the tailing of sheep and the de-horning of cattle.
	A question raised by my noble friend Lord Lucas is: what amount of suffering is justified to protect someone from getting jammed in the ribs by a horn? It is good to see that one of the permitting criteria to be used is "a government enactment", because a great deal of suffering has been due to government enactment in the past, such as the punching of calves and sheep as a proof of subsidy claim. This time round, it will be tagging or chipping under government identification schemes.
	I regret that I was unable in the time available to get hold of the details of what is contained in the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' definition of mutilation, but I was grateful to the Minister for clarifying the position on neutering and ear-clipping. There is a question about where a farmer will stand if he wants to give an animal a tag for his own management purposes. Is that by itself deemed sufficient for the animal's benefit? Some of the time-honoured customs of hill breeds may come into question. That is where ear-clipping, but also horn-branding with the mark of the home flock and the year of the sheep's birth, come in. The question to which a hill shepherd would want to know the answer is: what do you do on an open hill when you find a sheep that has lost its plastic tag?
	In Clause 6, I am personally much in favour of the exception that allows for the docking of working dogs' tails. I do not feel that that means that all working dogs will have to have their tails docked. On this subject, my noble friend Lord Soulsby gave us great detail about the current understanding of the science on the subject, but are we not converging on a slightly strange world where the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons in its brief tells us:
	"In the absence of clear evidence of the necessity of tail docking",
	it considers it right to impose a ban? Here we seem to be verging on legislating on the basis that, as some would say, "It seemed like a good idea at the time". But here I echo some of the final sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Christopher; surely the Government should be commissioning some meaningful research on this subject of the sort that is being undertaken in Australia at this time.
	Perhaps of more concern to me is the effect the ban will have on showing in local agricultural shows—a subject that might not have featured in many people's thoughts. Whole families who might otherwise have little interest in other animals are greatly attracted by the chance to show the family pet in what is by definition the most rudimentary of shows, but one that people will have paid to attend. In the few years after the law is passed, there will be a great shortage of terriers and the like that have had their tails docked, and thus a great shortage of families and their pets.
	In Clause 8, on fighting, it is as well that an animal fight is defined in relation to a protected animal, because without it one can envisage stalkers being taken to court for taking someone out on the hill to see a rut of the stags or the black cock at a lek. But have the Government considered phasing into the law an element for allowing for those who might have a legitimate excuse for allowing animals to fight? If a farmer wants two bulls or two rams to graze in the same field, he will introduce them and let them fight to establish which one is the master. More personally for me, as for many other farmers, every autumn I buy six or seven black-faced rams from different flocks. At the end of the sale, I gather them all into one pen and various fights occur. The thought of having to keep them all separate even when they are back at the farm is appalling. Under this law, I would have caused an animal fight. I have a small concern about subsection (4) on the destruction of animals. This has to be done appropriately and humanely under the Bill. One wonders whether the farm wife will have to attend classes before she wrings the neck of one of the chickens. Will the Minister confirm whether, under Clause 15, we will not be contravening some convention of the House of Lords by laying a draft before the House to which the House can object, as the House is not generally empowered to overturn secondary legislation?
	With all this going on, I am sure that we will have very interesting discussions in Committee. I think we all agree that we must apply all the knowledge and science that we can, but we must ensure that the right animals remain available and that there are those with the skills that make them capable of being put to use for the benefit of mankind.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I begin by thanking all noble Lords who have taken part in this Second Reading debate. It has been extremely constructive, and very helpful to the Government. I am delighted to note that there has been general and warm support from both sides of the House for the principles behind the Bill. A huge amount of expertise has been demonstrated, as one would expect in this House. I hope other noble Lords will forgive me if I pick out the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, but he has a special expertise in this field, and we very much look forward to his contribution at later stages of the Bill.
	I shall also pick out, if I may, what the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, said. Not only did he welcome the Bill and mention the expertise in this House, but he praised Defra for having succeeded in getting the Bill on to the parliamentary Bill list. He may know that this is not a time when Defra has received much praise—indeed, praise has been a fairly precious commodity in the past few weeks—and I thank him very warmly indeed for what he said this afternoon.
	As I mentioned in my introduction, we believe that the Bill, and particularly the new welfare offence, will make a real difference to animal welfare in England and Wales. It would be hard to argue against the rationale for bringing together and updating over 20 other pieces of related legislation. It is clear from our debate today that noble Lords will want to scrutinise many areas covered by the Bill much more closely than it is possible to do today. Those areas give rise to many issues, some of which I hope to deal with in a few minutes, ranging from circuses, pet fairs and pet shows to improvement notices, and even to animal fighting, which the noble Duke mentioned. I am sure that we will come back to that matter, even though I was somewhat surprised to hear that we will be dealing with it in Committee. I will also have more to say about the docking of dogs' tails in a moment or two.
	Many noble Lords mentioned issues that will be dealt with more appropriately in secondary legislation than in this Bill. We have provided an assurance in the Bill that none of these regulations will be made without consultation. I will do my best to make sure that my noble friend Lord Christopher's question about whom we consulted and when is answered properly. We have involved interested parties in the development of our regulatory proposals, which we believe are proportionate. The vast majority of the regulations will also be made through the affirmative resolution process to ensure parliamentary scrutiny. Details of the Government's proposals on secondary legislation are set out in the regulatory impact assessment.
	Let me do my best to address some of the specific points made during the debate. Time will no doubt prevent me from covering everything, and I hope noble Lords whose questions I do not answer or whom I do not address directly will forgive me if I write on any substantive outstanding points. I begin with the general topic of inspections, which was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and continued by many other noble Lords. She asked why we should have separate powers to inspect farms for welfare in addition to the 2002 Act, which she referred to. Powers of entry in the Animal Health Act are for purposes of disease control. Powers in this Bill replace and enhance those in the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968, which will be repealed, and are for the specific purpose of checking welfare. In many cases the same inspector can check both health and welfare on the same visit.
	The noble Baroness asked about inspection of farms generally, which I know is a concern for many and for the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, in particular. The number of inspections that take place during a year is of great concern to farmers generally. The Bill will extend to farm animals, but farmers already owe a duty of care to their animals. Farm animal legislation has kept pace with modern scientific developments and best practice, so we do not believe that the Bill will have a significant impact in that respect. We consider that the current powers of entry to farm premises are confused. The Bill does not give draconian new powers of entry. It clearly sets out in one place what these powers are in relation to welfare matters. I can assure noble Lords that the National Farmers Union and other representative bodies for farming have been consulted and have raised no major objections—indeed, I am told no objections—to the powers contained in the Bill.
	The noble Baroness asked why there needed to be a power to inspect in order to check compliance with Community obligations. This mirrors a similar power in Section 64A of the Animal Health Act 1981. It is necessary to ensure that we have sufficient powers for future enforcement of EU legislation. One example of this is the inspection of animals in transit. These animals are protected by Council regulation. They are not always farmed animals, of course.
	I was asked about the involvement of RSPCA inspectors in prosecutions and the qualifications of inspectors. It is reasonable to leave an element of discretion to local authorities as to the qualifications for inspectors, though there is power to issue guidance. RSPCA inspectors are normally involved in prosecutions in the capacity of witnesses, but in the case of local authority prosecutions the RSPCA might well not be involved at all.
	The definition of an inspector is set out in Clause 48. Under the Bill, inspectors are those appointed by either national or local authorities, although I anticipate that most of the day-to-day enforcement work relating to farm animals will continue to be undertaken by the State Veterinary Service. Local authorities will be able to appoint individual specialists as inspectors on the basis of their expertise and experience. By way of example, a British Horse Society inspector may help out in an area with a particularly high concentration of livery yards and riding schools. However, the individual will be acting in their capacity as an employee of the local authority and will be fully accountable for their actions. Individual RSPCA inspectors could be appointed by national or local authorities as inspectors under the Bill. These individuals would then gain all the powers that the Bill confers on inspectors. However, they would exercise those powers in their capacity as local or national authority employees, and I emphasise that they would not exercise them in their capacity as RSPCA employees. As for variations in standards, some variation is clearly unavoidable, but we hope that the codes of practice will bring about reasonable uniformity.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, mentioned animal pornography, which is a matter of great concern on all sides of the House. We are strongly of the view that the general offences set out in the Obscene Publications Act 1959 and the Video Recordings Act 1984 are sufficient to regulate content. Videos which go under the generic heading of "squish and burn", which are recordings of the most serious forms of cruelty, are covered by the Obscene Publications Act, and the RSPCA has been reassured on this point. There are a number of overarching principles in the sentencing guidelines which will direct courts to hand down tougher sentences where recordings are concerned.
	I turn to time limits for prosecutions and the question of whether this will result in excessive record-keeping requirements. The current time limit for prosecutions is six months. We believe that it is reasonable to extend this period to enable evidence gathering in serious cases. It is not an unusual provision in animal health or trades descriptions legislation. Most responsible businesses will already keep many records for three years. There is no reason to think that they will need to do more than they do already, given that prosecutions of reputable businesses are unlikely.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, my noble friend Lord Christopher and the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, touched on circuses. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, an announcement will be made on this in March by my honourable friend the Minister—I am sorry, the announcement has been made. There is a need of course to consult the industry, the veterinary profession and others with specific expertise regarding wild animals. This will take time. The process will start as quickly as possible, and in the meantime I look forward to our debate on circuses later in the proceedings on this Bill.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, with permission, I will repeat a Statement made by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in the other place. The Statement is as follows:
	"Mr Speaker, with permission I wish to make a Statement about the future of Northern Ireland. These last 10 years have seen many crucial decision points in the peace process. One was eight years ago when the people chose peace over conflict, consent over coercion, a positive future over a poisonous past. Now there is another choice.
	"Before the end of this year, Northern Ireland's political leaders and elected Assembly Members must decide whether to take responsibility for their people's future, as they have been mandated to do, or to opt for political cryonics. They must decide to bring an end to Northern Ireland's democratic deficit or to see locally unaccountable direct rule stretch into the foreseeable future.
	"I firmly believe that Northern Ireland is governed best when governed locally. I firmly believe that that view is shared by the people of Northern Ireland. Now is the time to prove them right.
	"Direct rule was a 1970s solution to a 1970s problem. Since then, Northern Ireland has moved on and changed beyond all recognition. It is light years away from the Troubles. Where once there was economic stagnation, now there is vibrancy. Where once there was the futility of cyclical violence, there is now the stability and prosperity of peace. And where once the political landscape was riven by sectarianism, there is now a shared desire from all the parties to move forwards and take their proper places in the devolved institutions into which they were elected. The only real argument is when and how.
	"The experiences of devolution in Scotland and Wales have demonstrated the huge benefits which local politicians exercising locally accountable power can reap. Both nations have seen increased self-confidence, increased economic growth, increased social cohesion and an increased international profile. Northern Ireland has also undergone a positive transitional experience, but the potential of full devolution remains tantalisingly out of reach.
	"The blunt truth is that Northern Ireland is in great danger of being left behind as not only the rest of the United Kingdom strides on successfully, but as the Republic of Ireland continues to be one of the biggest global success stories of our generation. It is now for Northern Ireland's politicians to catch up—and catch up fast. Northern Ireland's people demand nothing less.
	"From sport to science, from culture to business, Northern Ireland has some of the brightest talent anywhere in the world. It is time that its politicians lived up to that promise and showed vision and courage.
	"The arrangements which the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach outlined on 6 April give Northern Ireland's politicians the chance to close the chapter on the mistrust that has blighted the process since suspension of the institutions in October 2002. But if the parties do not choose to close that chapter of mistrust soon, the Government will be forced to close the book on devolution for the foreseeable future.
	"The IMC has stated unequivocally that the IRA no longer represents a terrorist threat. That is momentous and should be acknowledged as such. Where there are issues around criminality those must be—and indeed are being—addressed by the police, and with the support of the whole community. And where there are issues around trust, they can be resolved only by political dialogue.
	"Over the past few months we have held discussions with all parties in Northern Ireland with a view to restoring the political institutions. However, as the Prime Minister and Taoiseach made clear in their joint statement of 6 April, we cannot, and will not, try to force Northern Ireland's politicians to take that final step forwards. We can only point them towards what we believe to be the best road ahead.
	"We have come to the point at which those outside of the Northern Ireland political parties themselves can do little more to facilitate the process. I know that the decisions which will have to be taken are not easy ones. But I honestly believe that history will not look kindly on those who miss the opportunity that stands before us.
	"Copies of the joint statement made by the Prime Minister and Taoiseach on 6 April have been placed in the Libraries of the House, as have the speeches they delivered. I am further placing the Prime Minister's speech on the record in a written Ministerial Statement tomorrow. The joint statement indicated that the Northern Ireland Assembly would be recalled on 15 May, with a view to reaching agreement to restore the institutions by 24 November. Last week I nominated a new presiding officer, Eileen Bell. I have every hope that she will soon be overseeing the transition of the Assembly to full devolution. A woman of real courage, strength and ability, she is highly regarded by all and could be the symbol of a new political era of co-operation and progress, leaving behind sectarianism and division.
	"We will aim to discuss with the parties next week how the Assembly will function after 15 May, including its standing orders. I will be introducing an emergency Bill on 20 April, for taking through the House of Commons next week. The Bill will receive a Commons Second Reading on 26 April, with the Committee and all subsequent stages following on 27 April. I know that this is an extremely tight timetable, but the Bill will have only about half a dozen clauses in total and Members will appreciate the urgency. We need to get the parties back in the Assembly and talking now to provide them with the maximum opportunity for securing agreement by 24 November at the very latest.
	"The Bill arranges for the Assembly to be recalled with the express purpose that it sets about electing a First and Deputy First Minister on a cross-community basis and then forms an executive, under the d'Hondt formula. As soon as this is done, power will automatically be devolved, as happened in December 1999, and all the Assembly's other functions will be resumed.
	"Our hope and intention is that the Assembly will elect an executive within six weeks, as envisaged by Paragraph 35 of Strand One of the Good Friday agreement. However, if this time frame proves too short, the Assembly will have a further 12-week period after the summer in which to complete the task. During this period, it will be open to the parties to engage in further discussion, both among themselves and with the Government, on improving the running of the institutions.
	"The Assembly will also have opportunities to prepare for government by considering issues crucial to the future of Northern Ireland, such as the economy and reforms to education, water charges and public administration.
	"This Bill will have obvious implications for Orders in Council. Some of the forthcoming Northern Ireland legislation on transferred matters will obviously be appropriate for consideration by the restored Assembly, and Ministers will naturally be willing to take account of views on such matters, if they are provided on a cross-community basis. It would be preferable to all democrats that the parties were quickly to take up the mantle of government so that the decisions which affect the everyday lives of people in Northern Ireland were taken by locally accountable politicians. However, in the meantime, I will not delay in implementing vital reforms which this Government consider essential to the better running of Northern Ireland. While these decisions may not always be popular, they are necessary in the public interest, to put Northern Ireland on the road to becoming world class.
	"If, however, the Assembly has been unable to achieve a power-sharing executive by 24 November, then there will be no choice but to cancel Assembly Members' salaries and allowances forthwith, and to cancel the election due in May 2007. It would be absurd to elect Members unwilling to discharge their duties to an Assembly that will not have sat for over four and a half years. Restoration of the Assembly and executive would then be deferred until there was a renewed political willingness to exercise devolved power.
	"The two Governments would then continue their commitment to developing north/south co-operation and structures as set out in the Good Friday agreement. In this scenario, the agreement would remain very much alive. It is crucial that the parties keep talking, not just to the two Governments but to each other. We are committed to facilitating dialogue to achieve this over the months ahead in whatever forum is required—full plenary sessions of the Assembly, smaller forums of designated members, or all-party discussions, including with the Prime Ministers.
	"I want to emphasise that the strategy which the two Governments have agreed is designed for success, not failure. Our overwhelming desire is that local politicians take power back into their own hands, just as Scotland and Wales have done to great effect. It is time for Northern Ireland's politicians to show leadership and good faith—in themselves, in each other and in the people who elected them".
	My Lords, that concludes the Secretary of State's Statement.

Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. We on these Benches have also welcomed the IMC statement that the IRA no longer represents a terrorist threat. We recognise the significance of this, but share the Minister's concern regarding the ongoing involvement of paramilitaries in criminal activity on both the loyalist and republican sides. We also pay tribute to Eileen Bell, who has been appointed to be Presiding Officer. We have worked with her for many years, and look forward to her being a success in that role.
	We also welcome the fact that the Government have now set a clear target for the reconstitution of the Assembly. My one criticism is that this has come a little too late. I suggested to this House over two years ago that we should reconvene the Assembly, and that we should give a fixed date for the termination of people's salaries if they did not participate fully in its workings. I cannot disagree with what is being done because I urged it a long time ago. I was told that it would need primary legislation and all sorts of other things. I thought that was not very satisfactory, because one of jobs of this House, along with the other place, is to initiate primary legislation. I welcome the proposed Bill, and we will support it.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said, it would be enormously encouraging if there were a cessation, or at least a considerable abatement, of paramilitary activity, and of criminal activity in particular. On the other side there will be a need for the Democratic Unionist Party to be more flexible in making this work, because if it retains its intransigent position, the situation is doomed to failure.
	I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, says about any sharing with Dublin of the sovereignty of Northern Ireland. I agree with the legalities of that, but, as I also said two years ago, invoking the ire of the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, there will nevertheless be a de facto condominium. That is what the DUP should think about very carefully, because it is clearly going to happen. I do not want it to happen—I would much prefer devolution—but, as night follows day, it will be the logical outcome if Stormont is not up and running again.
	Broadly speaking, I welcome the Statement, while realising that it will be very tricky to bring the situation to a satisfactory conclusion. The job of this Government is far from over. They must continue to work with the parties in Northern Ireland to ensure that the Assembly is recalled on a permanent basis. Far too often in recent years, Northern Ireland has been subjected to quick-fix solutions which have ultimately failed.
	If this latest effort to restore the Assembly is to work, the Government must establish round-table negotiations which involve all the political parties. Will the Minister give a commitment today to establish such discussions? Will he assure the House that there will be no secret side deals with one or two of the parties, and does he recognise that, to achieve a permanent solution, all the parties in Northern Ireland must be in agreement on the way to go forward?

Lord Laird: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in another place. Obviously, there are a lot of good sentiments and good words in the Statement. I would be keen to see a world-class Northern Ireland and much of the Statement referred positively to the Province that is my native land.
	However, deadlines may not be a good idea in Northern Ireland—not that the Unionist community could not keep to deadlines. The problem is that the criminality of Sinn Fein/IRA may not positively be over. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, referred to £200,000-worth of drink being stolen in the south of Ireland. Is the Minister aware that Thomas Maxwell, who is currently in gaol in the Irish Republic on charges of stealing that £200,000-worth of vodka, was the Sinn Fein official who took the two clergymen and General de Chastelain around the arms dumps in the autumn of last year—only six months ago? He is now charged with stealing £200,000-worth of drink, so it is hard to see how Sinn Fein/IRA is divorcing itself heavily from criminality.
	In answer to a Question on 10 May last year, at col. WA 62, the Minister indicated that £1.43 billion had been lost to HMG by fuel laundering in Northern Ireland over the past four years. If we take the period from 2000 to the end of 2005, the figure is £2.1 billion. That does not take into consideration the drugs, the VAT swindles that relate to drink and the cigarettes. It is all there to see. A friend of mine recently spent a number of hours in South Armagh. He counted exactly 50 unmarked fuel-laundering tankers in the South Armagh area.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I do not have any information on the final question raised by the noble Lord that I can usefully give the House. On the legislative timetable, I am told that the Bill is short. As the Statement said, it has only six or seven clauses. However, I believe that the Bill that took us into the Common Market was also a short Bill, so one cannot measure the length of time needed for the passage of a Bill by the number of clauses in it—in my years in both Houses, I have learnt that fact. However, the Bill is a very precisely targeted piece of legislation just to get the Assembly up and running and to give it extra time to see if it can choose a First Minister and a power-sharing executive. If not, there will be a recess—a 12-week period—in which to have another crack at it. In the meantime, there will be a chance to facilitate discussion on a range of issues affecting the people of Northern Ireland, of which Ministers can take account.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, perhaps the Minister can tell us whether in the many discussions that there are clearly going to be between the Government and the Assembly we will at any stage make it a requirement that the McCartney case comes to court and that the IRA recognise the existence of British justice? It seems to me that that is a test case that will make a lot of difference to anyone's belief in the possible future of an honourable, sensible Northern Ireland. The other point is that I would suggest that it might be worth while to do two things: first, to ensure that everybody understands that in the south, in Dublin, Sinn Fein is almost as much considered a threat by the ruling government as it is anywhere else. That may well allay people's anxieties about a joint condominium of Northern Ireland, because I think that both ends of the country have reason to worry about that. Secondly, I hope very much that it will be made very clear that there will be no private deals such as that on the on-the-runs. We need reassurance on that point too.

Viscount Waverley: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their response to recent developments in Nigeria.
	My Lords, I am saddened that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, cannot join us this evening and would like, through the Minister, to wish him well.
	It requires Nigerian resilience to lead Nigeria with its many challenges, its religious, ethnic and regional complexities. Mature democratic institutions have successfully replaced long years of military regimes, a free and critical press thrives, enforceable strategies to curb notorious corruption are emerging and forgiveness from the shackles of crippling debt have been negotiated. I wish to pay tribute to all the people of Nigeria for their tenacity in pursuit of those welcome developments.
	I should also like to register the deep respect for the traditional rulers. I have had the privilege to consult the Ooni of Ife, the Emir of Kano and the Igwe of Achalla over the years and know of their tireless efforts to foster tolerance and encourage change, recognising that Nigeria's strength lies in its diversity. They continue to make an important contribution to a democratic Nigeria. In support of this, the Commonwealth observer group determined that, generally, the will of the people was expressed in the 2003 presidential election, including that of governorships and the National Assembly.
	The Nigerian Minister of Finance, a past senior member of the World Bank, recently identified important economic successes: macroeconomic stability; structural reforms, including the deregulation and liberalisation of a number of sectors; identifiable positive results of the transparency and anti-corruption drive; and the mounting of additional programmes through the Niger Delta Development Commission. Indeed, the improved World Bank standing to BB, ranking the economy's growth alongside that of Brazil and India, is evidence that governance appears to be on the right path and has generated much-needed confidence.
	It is also recognized that sustained and appropriate engagement with the international community is fundamental. John Shears of Centrica, the UK's largest utility, who took part in the 2005 licensing round in Nigeria, extols,
	"the increasing transparency demonstrated by the Nigerian authorities and their desire to work closely with the wider international community. Nigeria recognizes the need to continue its process of economic, social and political change and is making progress in doing so".
	Perhaps the Minister would identify practical measures that the Government are entertaining to strengthen the relationship with this strategic partner, including how Nigeria will benefit from the Chancellor's African "Education For All" initiative.
	Of course, many challenges remain, including poverty eradication, in particular the regional political balancing act; the impact of HIV/AIDS; terrorism and the often politically expedient exacerbation of Christian/Muslim tensions; the challenge of attracting foreign investment for infrastructure rehabilitation in an ever-increasing competitive environment; the new phenomenon of China's strategic engagement with Africa at large; and, finally, an unhealthy security situation in the delta oil-producing area.
	Prolonged engagement in the Niger delta is initially being addressed by economic development measures. However, in recognition that the supply of illegal arms and ammunition continues to fuel the conflict, would Her Majesty's Government offer assistance in, for example, identifying supply sources?
	West African peacekeeping owes much to the Nigerian commitment to regional stability and the responsibilities accruing to regional leadership. It should also be acknowledged that Charles Taylor was held, and returned, by Nigeria after consultation with the US, EU, UN and AU in order to create a favourable environment for peace in Liberia. Credit and thanks should be accorded to President Obasanjo for both.
	Two matters are worthy of note. First, there is considerable criticism of the unbalanced reporting on the Hausa service of the BBC. Because the BBC is considered a mouthpiece of the British Government, such perceptions, fuelled by unbalanced reporting, can generate considerable ill-will, especially given the north/south divide in Nigeria.
	Secondly, the Nigerians have severed the relationship allowing foreign news services to broadcast on FM. I have discussed this matter with the Minister of Information and the High Commissioner, Christopher Kolade, but I am sure that a word from the Minister, Lord Triesman, would be helpful on both counts.
	Pending constitutional amendments to create a constitution relevant to a modem-day Nigeria are exercising the minds of most Nigerians these days. The National Assembly in Abuja has postponed its debate of these proposals and is expected to vote in two weeks or so. The effect of the 100-plus amendments would consolidate advances already made, as well as lay down a federal framework for equitable governance through six geopolitical zones on a rotational presidency; provide for increased and equitable distribution of wealth; professionalise the armed forces; strengthen the independence of the judiciary; and, importantly, remove immunity.
	Those are advances on the 1999 military constitution, designed to encourage inclusion and full participation. Also pertinent is the suggestion that no attempt should be made to divide Nigeria or to undermine the north, that the quota system should be upheld, that the allocation to oil-producing states should be increased to 18 per cent, and that Obasanjo should not stay beyond 2011 if he is allowed to run again. The proposition of a possible extension of the presidential tenure has overshadowed all this. It is unclear whether President Obasanjo would contest the 2007 presidential election if offered the opportunity. Hard work would lie ahead, and he would need the renewed endorsement of his party, the PDP, and of the electorate in the upcoming presidential election.
	The intricacies of Nigeria's internal affairs require a more resolute appreciation by external decision-makers. Stability is paramount and the promotion of accountability is essential, but respecting parliamentary due process is in the best interests of Nigeria, the region and beyond. International pronouncements about constitutional change unleashing turmoil and conflict are somewhat premature. While international friends have a duty to ensure fair play, intervention would be neither useful nor welcome. It is exactly such interference, which derives from a dearth of nuanced cultural and political understanding, which encourages upheavals. The State Department and the White House in particular have recently signalled their acceptance of the proposed amendments, and it would be helpful if the Minister clarified the Government's position tonight. I can tell the House that senior representatives of the north and east, whom I called on two weeks ago, were far from critical of these amendments and now believe them to be in the best interests of Nigeria and the international community.
	In conclusion, safeguarding a democratic outcome to the constitutional amendments and recognising that Nigeria has come of age and is now master of its own destiny is the only sustainable policy. I wish Nigeria well.

Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, I very much welcome this debate, and I, too, extend my good wishes to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, who cannot be here this evening.
	From 1 to 8 April, I was privileged to be a member of the UK branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association delegation, who were guests of the Nigerian branch of the CPA. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the leader of the delegation, Roger Berry MP, and the secretary, Andrew Tuggey, for ensuring that the visit ran smoothly. I also thank Martin Shearman, our acting High Commissioner in Nigeria, and the political secretary, Alisdair Walker, for their indispensable assistance. They and their Nigerian colleagues put together a very impressive programme.
	Meetings in Abuja were held with parliamentary and government leaders, trade unions and other civil society organisations, and with the independent Electoral Commission chairman as a counterpoint. In Lagos, meetings were held with the very lively editorial department of a newspaper and with the west Africa vice-president of Shell. Shell, incidentally, provides about half the revenue of the federal government. Last but not least, meetings were held with the staff of DfID and the British Council, who in some ways are the unsung heroes of the UK effort. They arranged an encounter with Debbie, an extraordinarily dedicated teacher from Peckham, who put a group of boys and girls of all ages through their paces on a football pitch beside a derelict school.
	In Kaduna, we had a very interesting meeting with an inter-faith group, the Anglican Archbishop and a group of Muslim representatives, one of whom was a public health professional. Our discussions were very wide-ranging, and it was clear that the 2002 Kaduna declaration had been a very useful document after the riots that year. A couple of years ago, I had the privilege of chairing a meeting in the Moses Room after an address given by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, who emphasised the importance of the Kaduna and Alexandria declarations. After the Danish cartoon affair earlier this year, there was no doubt in Kaduna that the procedures put in place for the fire brigade helped to nip the situation in the bud and that it could have been much more difficult without them. So we thought that that was a very important meeting.
	Some of the social, political and economic difficulties require a slightly longer view to be taken. I worked in west Africa briefly 40 years ago. I was therefore struck by the following sentence on the World Bank website about Nigeria:
	"GNP per capita, at about US$390, is below the level at independence forty years ago".
	That is $390 per head per annum. It continues,
	"About 57 per cent of the population now falls below the poverty line of roughly one dollar a day. Economic mismanagement, corruption and excessive dependence on oil have been the main causes of poor economic performance and rising poverty".
	On corruption, I will give noble Lords just one figure: President Abacha embezzled $5 billion. He is up there in the first division league. Also with $5 billion to his credit, or discredit, is President Mobutu of Zaire. Of course, Abacha was not the only one. It goes on. In the words of the DfID briefing note,
	"years of military rule, corruption and weak accountability have prevented the development of a social contract between Nigerians and their government".
	It goes on to say:
	"By 1998 approximately 70 per cent of private wealth had been taken out of Nigeria".
	The fundamental problems of Nigeria include one of the fastest rates of urbanisation, at 5 per cent per annum, accompanied by economic stagnation rather than growth. Lagos has been growing at 10 to 15 per cent per annum and if this growth continues it will be the third largest city in the world by 2020. It is already a city throttled by infrastructure deficiencies and decades of neglect. Life expectancy of 49 years in 1991 fell to 45 years in 2002 and it is falling still.
	I have to conclude from that that the Foreign Office and DfID need to give far greater emphasis than they currently give to the questions of excessive population growth and lack of jobs growth. There are approximately 140 million people in Nigeria today; the census is trying to find out exactly how many. Growth of 2.5 per cent to 3 per cent means that there will be 180 million Nigerians by 2015 and 275 million by 2030. That is a rise in share above a quarter of Africa's population. So my speech could be entitled, "Too Much Population Growth, Too Little Jobs Growth". In the old days in Africa it was not a question of unemployment in the subsistence field, but with urbanisation we have to think in terms of normal industrial country concepts of unemployment rates. That is one of the keys to the crisis of Lagos, I would think.
	At the moment on EU Sub-Committee C we are looking at European Union strategy on Africa. It is obvious that there is a cluster of three key issues: security, governance and development. They are all interconnected. If private wealth through corruption leaves the country, that has an impact. I will come back to the delta question in a minute. But when one of the state governors said to us that we need a new Marshall Plan for Nigeria, we said, "Well look, there is already a $35 billion write-off of debt with the Paris Club a couple of weeks ago. There is already Gleneagles and the African Union strategy agreed in London". My noble friend Lord Triesman will know all that backwards, forwards and sideways, But the fact is that we cannot just turn on a tap. Our taxpayers would expect a degree of accountability that has not been provided, and the fact is that the issue of "value added" lay at the heart of the Marshall Plan. It has to be recognised that in 1948 the plan did set benchmarks for political, social and economic standards in Europe through the OEEC. If there is an analogy to be made with the Marshall Plan, that is it.
	I strongly support the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, but it has to be taken a stage further in its implementation with transparency of auditing on the part of both the oil companies, which provide 90 per cent of state revenues, and the finance ministry. Only last week the Financial Times published an authoritative report describing a discrepancy worth several hundred million dollars between what the oil companies say they are giving the Nigerians through the state oil company and finance ministry and what is being published by the ministry itself.
	I want to say only a few words about the Niger delta. Shell and the other companies are committed to making further investments, but I want to make the point that President Obasanjo has to become much more involved in the political economy of the delta region than he has been hitherto. The share made by the delta states, the pollution states, to national revenues is due to rise from 13 per cent to 18 per cent. It is important that we do not get into a situation where the Americans, who take half the oil, declare the Niger delta to be part of the war on terror. We do not want some crazy assistant in the White House defining it as being part of that war. However, that could be the direction in which things go.
	We had a good meeting with representatives from the trade unions. Our talks ranged from the difficulties of migration to the monitoring of the 2003 elections. The president of the Nigeria Labour Congress is a fine man who studied at Ruskin College, which is another example of the British connection. He is very highly regarded and could one day be a presidential candidate. He is also a good example of the dedicated people now to be found in Nigeria's political and socio-economic spheres. However, President Obasanjo has to be congratulated on his status as an international statesman. All I can say on the constitutional question in the time available is that we ought to be careful when we comment on it. It is obvious that it is possible to comment at the level of the African Union and NePAD on certain constitutional principles of governance. That is very important. But we are hardly in a position to discuss the details of a constitution as long as the process of change is carried out transparently and any ensuing elections are perceived by the people to be conducted fairly.
	In conclusion, Nigeria has played a prominent role in the African Union. Although my comments have been rather downbeat, everyone in the business community and in government says that the developing role and aspirations of the African Union are making a difference. In the words, I think, of the president of the senate, it is now inconceivable that there could be a military government again in Nigeria. So we have to say that there are some green shoots which should be strong enough to promote democratic development—not just handing the whole country over to the Chinese, as it were—and ensure that the principles of parliamentary democracy flower, bringing economic and social success with them.

The Lord Bishop of Coventry: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, for introducing this debate and I too send my best wishes to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. I wish to make it clear at the outset that I do not speak as an expert on this subject. Over the past 10 years I have developed an affection and respect for the people of Nigeria, and it is out of that affection and respect that I dare to make a contribution.
	Eight years ago the diocese of Coventry set up a formal link with the diocese of Kaduna. Noble Lords will be aware that Kaduna is almost unique among Nigerian states in being a 50:50 split between Christians and Muslims. I first visited the city of Kaduna in 1999, just two days after a vicious attack on a Christian procession which left 600 Christians dead on the streets. Any sense of self-righteous anger on my part was very soon put into perspective when, a few weeks later, the Christians retaliated, leaving many more dead Muslims.
	The presenting cause was, of course, the introduction of Sharia law, but it is rarely quite as simple as that. It has been well said that there is almost nothing one can say about a country as rich and diverse as Nigeria which does not end with the words, "But, of course, it is more complicated than that". Our history as a nation in bringing together the north and the south under Lord Lugard and our record of colonial rule—which, of course, included some exploitation of natural resources—suggest a need for us to have a certain care and humility in saying what ought to happen in Nigeria.
	Much is made of the religious conflict in Nigeria. We in Coventry are well served in our International Centre for Reconciliation by a number of people who have committed themselves wholeheartedly, not only to working in the country but to researching it as well. Canon Justin Welby, Dr Stephen Davies and, presently, Dr Beatrice Mwaka have investigated very thoroughly some of the issues which seem to be religious in origin. They have concluded—and I think I share their conclusions—that religion is often used as a pretext to provide a simplistic hook on which to hang complex ethnic, social and economic problems. The difficulty, of course, is that if the hook is used frequently enough, it becomes the problem.
	Religion has been the pretext for the most recent disturbances—the riots in Maiduguri in the north and retaliation in Oniche at the apex of the delta. We have seen as a result the shutdown of virtually 25 per cent of Nigeria's oil production. Within five years, Nigeria will be the single largest exporter of liquefied natural gas, with this country as a major customer. Events in the last few months show the importance of a secure supply of energy and thus the importance of Nigeria to this country as an economic partner to be treated with respect.
	In humanitarian terms, civil disorder in Nigeria has already cost several tens of thousands of lives since 2000 and resulted in the internal displacement of hundreds of thousands of people. The approaching 2007 elections put yet more strain on the stability of the country. External organisations such as the International Centre for Reconciliation in Coventry, Christian Aid and many other NGOs undoubtedly have a part to play, but, in the end, it is only the natural gifts of Nigeria's leaders—among the most dynamic in Africa—that can enable this regional giant to realise its full potential.
	That being said, the British Government can make a significant difference in a number of areas. They have already done much through the talents and imagination of the Abuja missions of DfID and the FCO, to whom we must pay tribute, and I should also acknowledge gratefully the financial support that the FCO has given to the ICR as well as to other agencies.
	What might the British Government do? First, they have the power and the position to continue to support a vigorous fight against corruption in conjunction with the courageous steps already taken by President Obasanjo and with those who lead the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, especially, I would suggest, Dr Alhaji Al Rubai. The City of London, as the largest centre for international finance in the world, enables Britain to be more effective than any other country in tackling money laundering. In addition to laundered money, cash may not always be traceable in bank accounts. Certainly other money has been invested in real property and other non-financial assets, both in the UK and in our overseas territories.
	Secondly, we need to support capacity building in the conduct of elections and of government, both directly working through the security forces and the Electoral Commission, and by offering media training and the development of monitoring skills within civil society. Thirdly, there should be continued support for those assisting in the fight against long-term destabilisation. Christian Aid is crucial in its struggle against AIDS and HIV. Educational partnerships at an institutional and individual school level can be of great value, both in Nigeria and in the transformative experience that they offer to schools in this country. These are the building blocks for a new society, tapping into the genius of this enormous and remarkable nation.
	To conclude with a further comment on religion, reference has already been made to the Archbishop of Kaduna, Josiah Idowu-Fearon, and to the Kaduna declaration, which was one of the fruits of the ICR in Coventry. The Archbishop's nickname locally is "Mr Dialogue". To our ears, that may sound like a compliment, but his insistence on regular, open discussions with Muslims does not always endear him to his own people. Simply by talking with the enemy—that is, with Muslims—many Church members feel that he is betraying them. To many Muslims, he is simply not to be trusted because he is a Christian leader. Mr Dialogue—Archbishop Josiah—frequently finds himself in a lonely place, yet there are many indications that the approach of open dialogue can work and can lead to greater understanding, trust and mutual respect.
	Only the religious leaders can achieve this breakthrough. Religion, while not the sole cause of conflict, is inextricable from other aspects of life in Nigeria, as it is in most of Africa. For that reason if for no other, people like Archbishop Josiah demand and deserve the strongest possible support from our Church and from our Government.

Lord Chidgey: My Lords, I begin by thanking you for your good wishes for the speedy recovery of my noble friend Lord Avebury. I will ensure that those thoughts are passed on to him, and am equally sure he will be fortified by your concerns.
	My contribution will raise three issues, as briefly as I can. In particular, we need to look in more detail at the problems of corruption, which has been endemic in Nigeria for some decades. I will comment on the economic developments in the Niger delta, and finally on the implications for good governance of moves to amend the constitution to allow an incumbent president to continue his term of office.
	To put tackling corruption in context, it would help to refer your Lordships to the recently published report of the All-Party Group on Africa, The Other Side of the Coin—the UK and Corruption in Africa. Corruption is a two-way issue. This group, of which I have the privilege of being vice-chairman, found that in evidence gathered for its report Nigeria sadly featured prominently. As the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, mentioned, Nigeria's past leaders have scaled new heights in unprecedented levels of embezzlement from the state. The national Economic and Financial Crimes Commission believes that in Nigeria some £220 billion was stolen or misused by the country's rulers between 1960 and 1999.
	As the All-Party Group on Africa point out, prior to becoming president, Olusegun Obasanjo said in a letter to the Financial Times back in 1994:
	"I shudder at how an integral part of my continent's culture can be taken as a basis for rationalising otherwise despicable behaviour . . . In no society is it acceptable to the people for their leaders to feather their own nests at public expense".
	That was a very brave statement to be made by him at that time. He should be commended for trying his best to live by those thoughts.
	President Obasanjo has been making strenuous efforts at federal level within the constraints of the Nigerian constitution to tackle corruption and introduce greater transparency—aided, it must be said, by action by our Government through the extractive industries transparency initiative.
	Nigerians have welcomed the president's moves but, not surprisingly, many have yet to be convinced that they are seeing the end of the all-pervasive corruption system that has held Nigeria back for so long. Human-rights lawyers in Nigeria claim that the society is permeated with corruption and that it will take more than a few high-profile sackings to make a difference, particularly when the sackings come against a backdrop of political infighting over who will be the ruling party's presidential candidate in the 2007 elections.
	There was a hope that with the current president nearing the end of his second term and excluded from standing again, and free from concerns over pleasing his political allies, he would finally grasp the vicious nettle and seriously address institutional corruption. That would probably be the best possible legacy he could leave his country. Moves to change the constitution to allow him to stand for a third term have, I fear, rather diminished those hopes.
	Tackling corruption also requires positive action from governments and institutions in the developed world. In this regard, I stress that the United Kingdom is a signatory to several binding international anti-corruption conventions. The Government have endorsed the report of the Commission for Africa, declaring it to be part of UK policy. Through that report's recommendations, the Government are committed to a range of measures to increase transparency in a wide range of transactions in commerce, industry and services.
	President Obasanjo has played a leading role in establishing NePAD, with its emphasis on good governance, the rule of law, transparency and peer review, throughout the African continent. Given, therefore, that both the United Kingdom and the Nigerian Governments are so strongly committed to the same ends, I hope that the Minister will be able to tell your Lordships what steps have been taken recently by the Government, in consultation with Nigeria, towards achieving these aims.
	On economic development in the delta region, the Nigerian economy is almost entirely driven by oil production. However, the lack of transparency means it is impossible to determine how much the Nigerian Government actually receive from this production and where that money is spent. The Niger delta region is, of course, the heart of oil production, accounting for more than 50 per cent of gross government revenues.
	The oil companies face significant problems in transporting the oil to market. Major losses occur from the delta's massive pipeline system through the practice of "bunkering". This organised theft accounts for losses of between 100,000 and 200,000 barrels of oil a day, costing Nigeria up to £2.5 billion per year in lost revenues.
	The all-party group on the Niger delta reports that, according to Shell, government action has resulted in the capture of 32 barges and six ships involved in the illegal trade of bunkering oil. Given the scale of these crimes, however, clearly much more needs to be done. International co-operation, along the lines to which the United Kingdom Government are strongly and publicly committed, is essential.
	Efforts are being made at federal level, and the United Kingdom is promoting transparency of oil revenues through the extractive industries transparency initiative. However, there are institutional difficulties, particularly constitutional limits on federal action. Perhaps inevitably, destructive tensions have developed between the oil companies and local communities, and it is not helped by the extent of the criminal bunkering activities.
	There are many individuals and groups seeking power by posing as champions of the people, demanding a greater share of oil wealth for their homelands. There are plenty of disgruntled youths whose anger can be exploited by these people. These self-professed people's champions, crucially, are able to maintain their sway through access to arms. The illegal trade in small arms seems endemic throughout west Africa, and its proliferation in the Niger delta must be a major concern to the federal and United Kingdom authorities.
	I see the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, is here tonight. In his response to the Niger delta group in early January, he said that the Government were considering what support they could give. Could he provide an update on progress in the past three months? In particular, what progress has been made on identifying weapons types and their origin? Can he advise whether any UK companies have had applications for strategic export licences refused because of concerns that their eventual end use would be unregulated, and in fact they would be used in Nigeria?
	The people of the delta are well aware of the huge wealth generated by oil, of which they see virtually nothing. Profits are siphoned off at various levels of federal and state government and by a criminal fraternity, in a perpetual cycle of corruption. The process demonstrates emphatically and dangerously that politics can be a route to enormous wealth, not just to power. The destabilising impact on government and the resentment generated against the oil companies and community leaders seen to be in league with the oil companies is self-evident. In consequence, this breeding ground for resentment and despair plays into the hands of the unscrupulous, ready to exploit those tensions in ways that can only damage the source of wealth itself. As the all-party group on the Niger delta emphasises, the ones who suffer are the people of the Niger delta and ultimately Nigeria as a whole.
	Finally, I turn to the issue of the forthcoming presidential elections and moves to amend the constitution to remove the bar on the president standing for a third term. It is right to say that we should approach this issue somewhat delicately. After all, who are we to tell other democratic countries how to run their affairs? Nevertheless, some of your Lordships will be aware of the heat that this has generated in many quarters and will no doubt have received only today a communication from a group calling itself the Nigerian Democratic Movement, based in Maryland, USA.
	For the record, the NDM is expressing fears that the ruling party is in fact seeking not one additional four-year term for Mr Obasanjo, but an additional 12 years—presidency for life in all but name. As would be expected, the NDM has supplied a raft of excerpts from across the range of Nigerian professional and civil society vehemently opposing these moves. It is not possible to corroborate these excerpts, but it is interesting that a study of reports by the BBC monitoring service for west Africa—in which I have great faith for accuracy—over the past few months confirms strong opposition against changes to the constitution from throughout society in Nigeria. The opposition ranges from Christian leaders in the north urging the president not to seek a third term, to militants in the Niger delta in the south threatening to engage the federal government in guerrilla warfare if he does not desist.
	In the light of the UK Government's previous support for President Obasanjo and his professed belief in good governance, the rule of law and democratic accountability, I would hope that we could have from the Minister a detailed account of the Government's reaction to what many will see as a series of unsettling and, to say the least, challenging developments.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I share the gratitude expressed by other noble Lords to the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, for initiating this debate at a very good time. I also join with others in sending my best wishes to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for his early recovery. We miss him in precisely this type of debate where he always speaks with great expertise.
	The timeliness of this debate is reinforced by events that took place over the Easter weekend. On the one hand, the IMF executive board met yesterday to finalise the ratification of the policy support instrument approved for Nigeria in October last year. That was one story. On the other hand there were over the weekend, and continue to be even today, reports of renewed and, I am afraid, bloody unrest, between the various groups, which all add to the miserable total of more than 20,000 deaths that are said to have occurred in the country since President Obasanjo's election in 1999. These two differing messages—the one positive and the other, sadly, negative—provide a backdrop to what has been undoubtedly a very interesting and useful debate, with knowledgeable contributions that one would expect from all sides of the House. That leads me to my first question for the Minister—and I know that he will seek to answer these questions. What assessment have we made of this renewed violence over the weekend, and the peace demands made by the Ijaws, which are the largest ethnic group in the delta region?
	Against that background, we have to look at Nigeria in the world scene. This morning in New York, crude oil prices rose again, well above the $70 a barrel level, and the markets in contango—that is to say the futures prices—are even higher. We have not yet reached the levels in real terms of 1983 and 1984, during the great oil shock of that period following the fall of the Shah in Iran, but we are getting quite near. These prices are being pushed higher and higher by concerns about supply disruptions in Nigeria among many other things. The tension over the Iranian nuclear programme is contributing, as are the disruption in Venezuela, the problems in Sudan, the political problems in Russia and the continuing incidents of sabotage in Iraq, where oil production is running at anything between 1 million and 2 million barrels fewer than many people had hoped that it would be by now.
	Nigeria is the world's eighth largest oil producer, the largest in Africa—and it will be, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry reminded us, one of the major exporters of liquid natural gas—that is, frozen gas—and, presumably, even of gas-to-liquid products, or GTL, in future. That will be the chief fuel of northern Europe for many years to come, so there is an important practical reason, quite aside from all the other reasons, why we should be very concerned with what is happening. Sadly, what has been happening in Nigeria is that exports of oil have been cut back by sabotage and other attacks. The right reverend Prelate referred to one-fifth or almost one-quarter of oil exports being cut; the figure that I have is about 0.5 million barrels a day, which would be between one-fifth and one-quarter. But at any rate a big chunk of oil is being shut in and not exported as it should.
	Tragically, despite these enormous oil and other mineral resources, Nigeria is currently ranked down at 151 out of 177 countries in the human development index of suffering from extreme poverty. I find that very hard to get into my mind. Incredibly, despite being oil-rich, it is among the 20 poorest countries in the world in terms of per capita income, with 75 million out of 140 million people living in absolute poverty. Of course those who suffer most are the small children, as usual, one in five of whom dies before reaching the age of five, while 12 million of them are not in school—and there are nearly 2 million AIDS orphans.
	So there is a good story for the future—and, let us hope, the basis for development; but there is also the sad story of yesterday, which is that one of the potentially richest countries in Africa is not as stable as it should be, still suffers, as your Lordships have rightly observed, from intense corruption, and still has to live with criminal networks that are currently stealing an estimated 300,000 barrels of oil a day, leaving oil income per capita at a miserable 30p per person. So here is the greatest country in Africa, full of rich potential and ready to act as a stabilising anchor for the rest of the region, but not yet in the position to do so. This is an example of the syndrome of the curse of oil, a dreadful reminder that huge flows of revenue from oil, rather like huge flows of unsuitably focused development aid, do not lead to development; they lead to the opposite. They entrench governments and corruption, and actually paralyse development.
	What are the keys we should be trying to find to turn the situation around and reinforce the points made by the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, about a more positive era now developing? Obviously good governance and transparency are the key. Endemic corruption and decades of military misrule resulted in steadily increasing debt and worsening socio-economic indicators. We all recognise the significant steps President Obasanjo has taken towards reforming the country since 1999—it has undoubtedly come a long way—including the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission and the fight against corruption, but it is a puzzle that that same president now wants to amend the constitution to give himself the third term he said he would not take. Clearly that is adding to the lack of confidence, and one wonders what word we, as friends of Nigeria, have passed to the president about how he should handle this delicate situation. It is not for us to interfere from outside, that is fair, but we are all members of the Commonwealth and have common standards, and we are entitled to a view.
	The noble Lords, Lord Lea and Lord Chidgey, mentioned the story over the weekend about the gap between the money the oil companies say they are handing over to the Government and the amount the Government's central bank says it actually receives. These are unhealthy figures, and the whole story needs to be brought out and made more transparent if confidence is to be restored.
	I am sure we are all increasingly aware that new players are on the scene in Africa. The biggest new player is of course China, which has an increasing involvement everywhere. There was a report only today that China and Russia are playing a different hand as far as Sudan is concerned, where China has huge oil interests, and are blocking sanctions against Sudanese officials accused of involvement in Darfur violence. The Chinese Foreign Minister was saying only the other day that he regarded his country's involvement in Nigeria as operating on the principle that,
	"We try to separate politics from business".
	One wonders what links, exchanges and dialogue we are developing with these great new powers in the world—namely, China and the other Asian powers—as they pursue their agenda. Are they on board, as it were, in terms of a joint approach to the work of the UN regarding human rights? Are they acting as positive, responsible nations that want peace, as they keep saying they are? If they are, should we not co-ordinate more closely with them, and not think of ourselves just as part of a western world that has separate interests from the Asian world? After all, we do not; we all have the same interests, increasingly, in Africa.
	In my allotted time I can touch on only some of the issues affecting this enormous country, which could be the keystone to stability in the whole region; indeed, almost in the whole continent. I appreciate what the noble Viscount has reminded us of, that all is not doom and gloom in this part of Africa. But with the renewed violence, sabotage and the loss of oil, there is a feeling that one step forward often leads to one step back and that no progress is made—in fact, living standards continue to fall in some areas.
	We have one overriding and binding link with this great country. We and Nigeria are both members of the Commonwealth network, which is proving to be the kind of organisation and pattern far more suitable to the 21st century than the traditional blocs and institutions that were created in the last century. It is in our direct interest to see Nigeria stabilised and fulfilling its massive potential for Africa and the world, and that is what we must all work for, in the right way. I hope we will do so.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, for introducing this important debate. I applaud the balanced and sound reasoning in everything that he said. He invited me—I take up his offer of course—to send the good wishes of the House and of the Government to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, who I believe is recovering from his operation. He is in our thoughts. I thank also the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry, who covered almost all the key questions. I hope that I will be able to do justice to some of those questions this evening.
	The United Kingdom's relationship with Nigeria is very close. It is bilateral and, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, reminded us, it is through the Commonwealth. We are the biggest bilateral donor to Nigeria—DfID's budget will rise to £100 million for 2006–07—and the largest investor. Increasing numbers of Nigerians are living and working in the United Kingdom. Ours is a deep and historic friendship, and we are proud of it. What happens in Nigeria matters to us. The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs stressed this during his visit to Abuja and the Niger delta just last February.
	Presidential, state and local elections are due to be held in 2007. Since Nigeria's independence in 1960, there has been only one successful civilian-to-civilian transfer of power. That was in 2003, when President Obasanjo was elected for his current, second term. 2007 will be an important milestone. DfID, as well as the other international donors, is already supporting the Independent National Electoral Commission in a programme to ensure that elections are free and fair, and are seen to be so. We will work also with the EU and the Commonwealth to this end.
	Speculation is rife in Nigeria about whether the president intends to change the constitution to enable him to stand for a third term. I accept that tensions are running high. The noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, described the issues as generating heat. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, reflected on these electoral issues as well. The national assembly is expected to vote later in April on a raft of proposed constitutional amendments. These include a proposal to allow a further four-year term for the president and state governors, but also, importantly, withdrawing of the current immunity from prosecution for serving governors and increasing the percentage of oil revenues that go to the producing states from 13 to 18 per cent. Debate about such issues is an important part of strengthening the democratic process. The noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, raised all these key issues. As he requested, I shall clarify the Government's position.
	The decisions on constitutional amendments are for Nigeria alone. The United Kingdom, the United States or other interested bystanders would have no standing to intervene. President Obasanjo has said publicly on a number of occasions that he will not act unconstitutionally. We—together with the rest of the international community, including the United States—have welcomed that assurance. We know that he fully understands the importance of maintaining peace, stability and reform for the future of Nigeria, as well as the importance of sustaining reform and his own legacy. We are confident that his decisions will reflect this understanding.
	Having had the privilege of meeting him on a number of occasions, I would say by way of a general description of him that he was elected on a mandate of reforms for Nigeria and that he has kept to his agenda. He has pushed forward economic reform. He has agreed a major debt relief package and has acted decisively to tackle corruption and financial crime, arresting key figures such as the governor of Bayelsa state and sacking corrupt Ministers. He is an international leader in promoting the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative. Politically and economically, Nigeria plays a leading and positive role throughout Africa, and the president has helped reduce tension and conflict. During his presidency, Nigeria has become a leading contributor to peace-keeping operations through the United Nations and ECOWAS, and it provides peace-keepers to Darfur. In 2005, as president of the AU, he intervened in Togo following a coup d'état and successfully negotiated a return to democracy. Also through the AU, he has been trying to engage with Zimbabwe over the growing crisis there.
	But there are problems. Recent events in the Niger delta, including an upsurge of violence, attacks on oil installations and kidnappings of foreign oil workers, have serious implications for Nigeria and for the international energy supply and global oil markets. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, identified the global pressures on oil supplies which are made much more significant by these developments in the delta. Recent events have cut production by about 25 per cent, we believe. The loss of revenue in the longer term could impact on Nigeria's ability to deliver its own budget and, hence, its development goals.
	There are three main challenges to address—security, governance and development. There is no single solution to the problems; they have to be approached together and in a co-ordinated manner, as the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, said. The United Kingdom, through the FCO, DfID and the MOD, is working with the Nigerians on two main initiatives to address these issues. The first is the Gulf of Guinea energy security strategy, which aims to professionalise the Nigerian military through training and capacity building and to increase co-ordination between the security forces, specifically on small arms proliferation and money laundering, to which I shall return. We currently support work to assess the nature and scale of the small arms problem.
	The second initiative is the Rivers State development initiative, which focuses on community-led development through large-scale infrastructure to create employment as well as sustainable development programmes. We have to reduce tensions and poverty in the delta if we are to improve living standards for the people of that region. In all this, we are working closely with the Nigerians and the United States. The next meetings take place in Washington later this month. We must reach concrete decisions that will make a difference on the ground.
	Of course we are concerned for our own citizens and for the foreign companies that operate in the vital oil-producing region. There have already been two kidnappings of expatriates in 2006; both included British nationals and involved officials and Ministers. Oil companies and their employees must be able to go about their work in a secure environment. We have been talking to Shell, with which of course we work closely on this, and to the Nigerian authorities about what they can do and what more we can do to assist. But there needs to be greater commitment on the part of the Nigerian authorities to tackle the problems, as well as better co-ordination between the interested parties.
	On reform and development, President Obasanjo was elected in 2003 on a radical and clear programme of reform. He is delivering it and we fully support his efforts and those of his impressive economic team under the leadership of Mrs Ngozi. The noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, emphasised the need for effectiveness in economic and social change and greater transparency in those areas. I wholeheartedly agree. Economic policy making is moving to a more rational footing for the first time since independence and Nigeria has made a real start in tackling corruption.
	Reform in Nigeria is also essential if it is to meet the millennium development goals. DfID is playing a leading role in helping. Nigeria is at the heart of the education initiative recently announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—it is a remarkable initiative. The noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, asked about our plans in that respect. Through DfID, the UK will help Nigeria to create a 10-year education plan, which will aim to provide free education for every child in Nigeria.
	The investment in people is important in every respect. The noble Lord, Lord Lea, raised the questions of population growth and the need for jobs. One of the most fundamental issues has to be education as a key to achieving good jobs and stability in employment. So, investment in people is increasing. Nigeria's 2006 budget will see increases of over 30 per cent in recurrent expenditure on education and health and of over 60 per cent on water. Savings on debt relief will free at least an additional $1 billion a year for Nigeria to spend on poverty reduction, helping to employ an extra 120,000 teachers and to put 3.5 million people into school. Those are the figures that the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, was asking for.
	It was progress on reform that persuaded the United Kingdom to take a leading role in championing the debt deal for Nigeria in the Paris Club in 2005. It is a main part of our agenda for the Commission for Africa. Under the deal, Nigeria used part of its oil windfall to pay US $12.4 billion of its external debt with creditors cancelling the remaining $18 billion. Money saved on servicing debt will make a difference to the development agenda. There is of course more to do.
	The economic reform team is determined to embed its work as much as possible ahead of the elections next year and the legislative agenda is ambitious. We are keen to see the Nigerian Government pass the Fiscal Responsibility Bill soon. It is a key piece of legislation that will develop transparent frameworks for prudent management of Nigeria's resources. It will help Nigeria achieve long-term macro-economic stability, placing conditions, importantly, on all three tiers of government: federal, state and local; and bringing consistency to decision-making.
	The Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) Bill, which will enshrine the EITI process into law swiftly, and the Public Procurement Bill, which will improve transparency and competitiveness of public procurement at all levels of government, are also important elements of the legislative programme. It is true to say that transparency demands the highest auditing standards and accuracy.
	Corruption has understandably been raised in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, focused on it in the first of his three main points. It is a serious hindrance to Nigeria's development and we welcome the president's efforts to strengthen the operation of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission and support investigations and high level prosecutions. It is a major change from earlier periods such as those described by my noble friend Lord Lea. Crime, especially serious financial and organised crime, also has a significant impact on governance and poverty levels throughout Nigeria. It impacts on the UK directly too through advance-fee and other frauds, trafficking and money-laundering, and a high level of illegal immigrants. However, I wholly accept the proposition that corruption is a two-way street and our own house must also be in order. We have a clear obligation and we have an obligation in our legislation to track and return stolen assets, and to prosecute where we can.
	We have been asked this evening to say what the Government are doing to assist those processes. We are cutting down the avenues for corruption. DfID is providing support for Nigerian participation in the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative; we are strengthening the anti-corruption agencies; the UK is providing equipment and expertise to strengthen the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission; we are working to strengthen co-operation on specific cases; and the Metropolitan Police are working with Nigerian law enforcement and security agencies to bring specific cases to prosecution. We have ratified the UN Convention against Corruption. Bringing cases to trial under the standards of proof required in the United Kingdom courts is no easy matter. It is not an undertaking that can be embarked on lightly, but our obligation is to do so and to make sure that we achieve those standards of proof. We are currently investing heavily in the training and research institute of the EFCC as well.
	Co-operation to tackle all those issues is already strong. We have signed the MoUs on human trafficking, police co-operation and an immigration returns agreement in the past 18 months. We are stepping up co-operation even further: my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary announced during his recent visit a project worth £250,000 to train the Nigerian police.
	I turn to the questions that have been raised about human rights and the Muslim/Christian relationship. Nigeria has more Muslims than any other sub-Saharan African country—around 60 million. Ongoing and historical tensions between the communities in Nigeria can lead to violence across the country—unfortunately, sometimes with significant loss of life—although I accept that these things can also be an excuse for other reasons for violence. Most often this violence is driven by political events, such as speculation about the elections in 2007 and recent public hearings on the constitution. Whether the last weekend was more violent than others, our information does not show. It may have been very little different.
	Violence can also be triggered by other events, such as the publication of the Danish cartoons—a matter raised by my noble friend Lord Lea. Attacks on one group often lead to violent retaliatory attacks, and we condemn all such violence. The British High Commission in Abuja raises, when verified, individual cases of religious persecution that come to our attention and it makes representations to the authorities when riots occur. But we do not believe that reports of large-scale subjugation of Christians are well founded. It is important to promote better understanding between religious communities.
	At this point, I turn to the remarks of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry, who knows these areas of concern so well. In Plateau State, Coventry Cathedral's International Centre for Reconciliation is doing outstanding work, as I have been able to acknowledge in the House on a past occasion. It is work on reconciliation and promoting better relations between Christians and Muslims. The ICR also has responsibility for a small arms project worth £50,000. It was started in January, so I suspect that it is rather too early to draw conclusions from it. However, its aim is to identify the sources of small arms, and I can say that at present we believe that there is no evidence of small weapons being sourced in the United Kingdom.
	We are also engaging more with Nigeria's Muslim north. The High Commission is undertaking a programme of visits to the north by prominent British Muslims to discuss women's education and voters' rights, as well as to demonstrate the British view of multiculturalism. DfID is opening an office in Kano. I suspect that the lessons learnt from Archbishop Josiah—"Mr Dialogue"—could well serve all of us.
	On human rights, there are concerns about heavy-handed interventions by the police and the security forces, but there has been an overall improvement in Nigeria's human rights record since 1999. The state does not systematically or deliberately oppress the rights of individuals or particular groups, and the constitution provides for freedom of speech, assembly and religion and for an independent judiciary. The media and political discourse are free.
	Here, I have to comment on the BBC World Service—an important question that has been raised. I am Minister for public diplomacy and am therefore responsible for the BBC World Service. I understand that the World Service has an arrangement with Raypower FM to relay live news programmes made by the World Service. In the past, this worked well and benefited both partners, but problems have arisen over the re-broadcasting of World Service programmes by Raypower, particularly in news areas. The Nigerian National Broadcasting Commission enforced a directive banning all Nigerian stations from relaying live news from foreign broadcasters and that has had an impact.
	I say to the House—I am sure that it is known without my having to say it—that the World Service has total editorial and managerial independence from government, and it has a reputation for delivering authoritative, accurate and impartial news. To deliver the service effectively, it established the partnership with Radio Raypower, and the current banning of news programmes means that the service is broadcasting for only about seven hours each week. I should like to see the service fully restored, not least because I believe that it is one of the best and most independent relayers of impartial news anywhere in the world, and we are entitled to feel proud of that in this country.
	A number of other issues have been raised in the debate. A dialogue is taking place with China. It is not easy, but it is taking place. As the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said, it would be foolish beyond belief not to try to engage with a country and a power so systematically involved throughout Africa, Latin America and other parts of the world. We raise human rights issues and peace issues. We are trying to find common ground. I suspect that it will not be a rapid dialogue, but it is essential to have a dialogue.
	As I said, it is in the interests of us all and also in Nigeria's interests that we discuss all those kinds of issues, precisely because Nigeria will remain central and important to this country. One in four people in sub-Saharan Africa is a Nigerian. If Nigeria fails to meet the millennium development goals, it is unlikely that Africa will meet those goals. What happens in Nigeria impacts on the wider region and on Africa generally. As chairman of the AU, President Obasanjo played such an active role across Africa and he has continued to do so. He has taken a constructive part in the Darfur peace process and he has demonstrated his courage most recently by helping to deliver Charles Taylor to stand trial before the special court in Sierra Leone. That was a personal commitment for the president and it was not easy for him to deliver. I acknowledge it fully in the House tonight. I welcome what has finally happened.
	I do not believe that we shall ever make the mistake of ignoring how things develop in Nigeria. We shall continue to work hard to support the country, its president and his impressive team, to build on the successes of the past few years and where we can to address the issues that are important for Nigeria's continued stability and development. Let me emphasise how we see the situation. This is a long-term relationship and a long-term friendship. It can never be anything else. As my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary said in Abuja on 14 February:
	"We will remain committed to this country and to the closest possible relationship with it".
	That is a simple obligation, best said simply and I repeat it tonight.

Tuesday, 18 April 2006.